I’ve reviewed several online musicians, even before GOM, and the story is the same…unprofessionals are seeking legend and lore; whereas, professionals are in “the know”, and seeking ‘sound’ advice and criticism (as it makes them…more professional) A true artist doesn’t do anything for the people. He/she is a very selfish entity; in that, the creative process gives birth, literally, to a child of the creator. And, any praise or critique will fall short of the work itself. The piece will always be, held in higher regard by the artisan himself/herself and will, almost always, be judged and consequentially, said judgement, will fall short of the artisans expectations. For a reviewer to be subjective, they must, first, be objective. How, pompass does that sound?
That, which leaks, reeks. Now, you have a starting point and a weakness to focus on. If the work has lost everything, after the trauma, then it’s lousy but workable. If it doesn’t lose much, it has character. And, finally, if it doesn’t lose anything, it’s also: lousy, unreal, or you’ll need a bigger paper weight. A true, work-of-art is always under construction or unfinished. And, often, you will hear the ‘artist’ say, “Man, that line just doesn’t work!” or,”The color is all wrong” even, after having sold the piece. My point is, that, a surgeon makes a lousy patient; and all artists are their own ‘worst critics’. In giving a review of someones masterpiece, take into consideration that, they have already done some of the bludgeoning for you. |
||||
|
|
