,

decision.

Josh Tolentino — 1*
Studies

 

\

Melanie Reich — 1* Year Theatre

No. I contemplated it, but didn’t. I thought the
people who were currently elected were doing an
okay job. I also didn’t have the time to research
the candidates, and I wanted to make an informed

a

Year General

No, I didn’t have my ID on me so they wouldn’t let
me. I would have voted otherwise.

 

 

campaigning.

   
 

Chelsea Mason - 2™ Year Music
No, I’m only on campus two days a week. I didn’t

have enough time. I wanted to make an informed
decision but couldn’t do any research.

Ryan Hatch — 2™ Year General Studies
Yes, I think it’s important to the school to have
people voting. I also know some of the people

WORD ON THE STREET

ByShannon McKay, Staff Photographer
ag =z a Esa fren] ma fare] a =a zz al Ea fessor iaace a] =a fra] as

“Did you vote in the student union election?”

in the election and I wanted to support them.

mo mmm mm mmm

Debra Rheumer -— 1“ Year General

Studies
Yes, I know some of the people who were candidates

 

Fe
t
I
I
'

Leanne Humphrey - 3” Year Sports
Science

Yep, I think it’s important to be involved in the
school’s politics. This is also the only year I’ve seen
candidates put so much effort into campaigning.

April 7, 2008

  

a

eee

 

J

 

The softer side of an elitist arts snob

 

By Tina Hassannia, CUP Arts Bureau Chief

OTTAWA (CUP) — “In many ways, the
work of a critic is easy. We risk very little
yet enjoy a position over those who offer up
their work and their selves to our judgment.
We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun
to write and to read. But the bitter truth we
critics must face, is that in the grand scheme
of things, the average piece of junk is more
meaningful than our criticism designating it
so. But there are times when a critic truly
risks something, and that is in the discovery
and defense of the new. The world is often
unkind to new talent, new creations—the
new needs friends.”

—Anton Ego, Ratatouille

The relationship between artists and the
journalists who critique them is a tenuous
one. On the one hand, artists and critics
are brought together by their passion and
appreciation of art. They attend the same
shows, get drunk at the same bars and wear
the same ironic T-shirts. On the other hand,
critics must do their readers justice and
deliver the honest truth in their reviews,
even if their opinion is a negative one.
Artists—who have put their blood, sweat,
and tears into their work—are at the mercy
of the critics who may publicly humiliate
them with bad press. Their careers may not
be over, but a bad review has the power to
taint an artist’s reputation and even impact
how much money they make.

It’s an unfortunate scenario. I
have interviewed plenty of artists who have
spoken harshly of journalists that gave

them negative reviews. Sometimes, their
criticisms of the criticisms are warranted;
other times, I secretly agreed with the
review. But my opinion is relative, and worth
as much as anyone else’s. The appreciation
and interpretation of art, much like art itself,
is a fairly subjective matter. This is not to
deny the guidelines that pave the path in
the creation of art — these guidelines are
important tools for artists to learn so they
can experiment and create new works. But
when critics take over, their interpretation
and appreciation for a piece will all depend
on their life experience, background,
education, culture, and so on. Opinions can
clash. Many artists may be dismissed until
years after their death. Many artists will
not find notoriety in their own country, but
become cult favourites in Japan. To try to
quantify art would be taking a step back into
modernity.

If art is subjective, and so are the
opinions of art critics, what is the point?
Why should critics like those at Pitchfork,
who can make or break an aspiring indie
act’s career, wield so much power, especially
when they can make an artist’s career more
difficult than it already is?

There is a place and purpose for arts
criticism, despite its flaws. It allows for public
discourse about art interpretation, without
which, people would never be stimulated to
think critically about art. Public opinion is
important because it furthers our collective
and individual understandings behind a
topic. Even if opinions clash, we can all

weigh in and come to our own conclusions.
The Internet has been particularly good for
facilitating this communication, and it gives
anyone, regardless of their credentials, the
chance to critique anything and everything,
from an opera recital to a crappy, not-funny
YouTube video.

Secondly, arts reviews give people
who don’t have the time to absorb every
piece of artwork a chance to filter out stuff
they may not like, and the opportunity to find
something new. Granted, people will become
attracted to critics who match their tastes,
and this is both good and bad. On the one
hand, it helps people find new exciting stuff.
On the other, sticking to the same sources
can make people complacent and prevent
them from exploring new artistic territory.
The Internet, with its endless music blogs,
arts critics, and Last FM playlists, kind of
helps us out with that.

If the opening quote to this piece is
any indication, critics deliver their finest not
when they make sarcastic, biting insults—
even though they might think they’re
absolutely hilarious—but rather, when they
introduce readers to something new and
spectacular. While being an artist or having
studied the art form is great experience under
the belt, by no means is it necessary. All they
need is a talent for writing in an enthusiastic,
informative, and entertaining style, one that
grabs readers by the balls and throws them
into something they’ ve never experienced.

15