Do we as artists have the right to defend our work against criticism

[the_ultimate_evil]

This spawned from a discussion that happened in class today, while in the process of discussion how we will present our final year gallery show.

The subject of criticism came up and everyone agreed that it would be expected to receive some on the night, but what caught me as strange was that I was the only one who felt it was right that we should be able to defend aspects of our work or the work as a whole against these criticisms

When I said this I got nothing but blank stares from the class. One even went on to say that once you display your work you no longer have any say in it and you should  accept and agree with anything people say about your work

Now I am in no way against feedback or criticism on an artist work in fact I encourage and welcome it, but I do feel that if an artist feels strongly about an aspect of his work or against what  the viewer is saying then they have to right to defend the work

Am I the only one who feels this way or am I just nuts

[captainspud]

Depends how you define "defending".

If someone makes a comment, I feel we have the right to clarify and explain. Sometimes people don't understand why you did something that was intentional, and will assume it was accidental or incidental. In that case, it can help their interpretation of your work if you explain your motivation and design process.

That said, if they still don't like it, there's not a lot you can do. And if a lot of people make the same comment, you can be pretty sure there's actually a problem.

Ultimately, I find that criticism of finished works is a bit redundant. I am fully aware of almost all the problems that exist with my works (hence why I'm so unhappy with most of what I produce). When someone points out a problem, I probably already know about it. Where the criticism is useful, then, is in determining which of the known problems are noticeable to your viewers, which can help in repairing that work and in working on future works.

The question of whether you have a "right" to defend is the wrong question to ask. Of course you have the right to defend your work if you feel people are missing something. The real question that should concern an artist is whether you HAVE to defend it for it to be understood. If your symbolism is so opaque and vague that nobody understands it without a lengthy exposition, then that probably means you were too loose. If everybody complains that a piece was sloppy, and you have to repeatedly point out that you were intentionally being more abstract than usual, that probably means you went too far, or that you just aren't much good at abstracting. Etcetera, etcetera.

So, yeah. Feel free to defend if you think it's a problem of misunderstanding, but also keep in mind that it's quite possible your stuff really does have problems, and learn to tell the two varieties of criticism apart. Fight the battles you can win, and accept the losses you can't avoid.

[JKCarrier]

I pretty much agree with Spud. You certainly have the right to defend your work, but it's almost always a bad idea. You're unlikely to change the critic's mind, and you'll probably just end up looking whiny and defensive. Take the criticism for whatever it's worth; if it's completely off-base, your best bet is to just shrug it off and get back to work.

[the_ultimate_evil]

i'd like to throw out something, when i used the term defend i in no way meant it as a case of stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA NOT LISTENING

what i meant was you had the right to put forwards the views and ideas that lead you to the final piece,you still listen to others views and there opinions and take from them

what made me use the term defend(though i agree wrongly) was the idea put forward by some of my class that an artist is to do nothing but sit there smile at very thing that is said about his/her work no matter if complementary, constructive or just plain rude and ignorant, and say " thank you, your 100% right and i agree totally"

[Cardmaster]

I ran into this with a crit I had last week, actually...

Problem is, unless you intend to stand next to the piece and explain it to every viewer, "defending" (for lack of a better term) it from criticism is inevitably not going to accomplish very much, as its likely the person giving the criticism isn't going to be the only person to think such a thing.

Of course, it may be that you just don't care and it was your original intention to do such a thing, in which case the whole thing is a moot point and you might as well just say "eff 'em" and leave it unchanged.

-CM

[tommyboy]

It seems pretty obvious to me that if a critic has the right to their opinion, the artist has the right to reply.
Art isn't a completely finished process, in some ways. It can be a kind of opening statement in a dialogue between the artist and the world.
Of course the art may well outlive the artist and the dialogue its creation starts, and begin anew each time a new person sees it for the first time. But just as the art garners responses in the viewer, whether vocalised or not, so too should those responses beget their own responses.
The critic does not get "the last word", any more than the artist does. Each expresses themself through the media thay choose. If you feel a response to your work merits a reply, then it does. If a critic feels your work merits a reply, then it does.
Some feel that the artists Art must speak for them, that anything else might demean, diminish or dilute either the art or the artist, (or both). I don't share that view as it presupposes some mystical distinction between the type of human who makes art, and the type who responds to it, and I see no evidence of two species of humanity.
Sometimes the criticism is not worth responding to, if it's just some feeb trying to make themself feel bigger by diminishing someone else.
But sometimes the dialogue will be a genuine exchange of ideas, and is worth entering into.
Even if one particular piece is "finished", the artist is not. The ideas and knowledge of others can inform and improve future pieces.
That's my feeling.

[Pyroclasm]

While an artist has the "right" to defend his/her work, it is not always right to do so.  I am somewhere in between the two extremes you mentioned.  I would not sit idly by smiling and agreeing with the criticism, unless it is done for political reasons (i.e. a professor or boss or somesuch).  However, I would not necessarily feel the need to "defend" my work.  If the viewer doesn't like it, it's their loss.  What you should do is listen to any and all criticism and understand it.  You don't have to agree, just understand.  As the artist, you see the art colored by your mind's eye.  The viewer sees it with an "objective" view.  (Objective is in quotes because their view is colored by their own mental baggage but it is free of the creator's attachment.)  Listening to these criticisms can help you see things you wouldn't let yourself see.  Perhaps you made an outright error you glossed over, or perhaps what you thought was an effective use of shadows doesn't really work as intended. Use those criticisms to improve and to grow.  Now if the "criticism" you are referring to are the viewer's opinions of your subject or the "message" they think you put into your art, have at it.  Everyone has a right to their opinion, and you have the right to yours.  Especially if they think they know you or what you were thinking through your art.

[Alaric]

You absolutely have the right to respond to criticism, and if you feel strongly that there's something in that criticism that you need to respond to, by all means, go ahead. It's probably a good idea to respond in a way that can't be construed as denying the critic's right to his or her opinion, however.

[afterburn]

  I feel very strongly about being able to defend your work, whether it helps your case or not.  I went to school as an architect and more than twice a semester I had to explain and defend my work to a jury of peers or professors.  Sometimes it went my way, sometimes it did not.  Some people may not see what I do as art but rather "playing with popsicle sticks and cardboard" as some of my friends tease, and others do.  We were encouraged to defend our work, but in a constructive way.  You have to explain your work the right way, you can't just say "I did this because, there has to be a reason."  This shows that you know your work, and if your critic understands where you come from rather than just putting your face with something on the wall, there is a greater chance you can change their mind about you and about your work. 
  I learned that after spending hours and hours on a piece of work, you then have to spend time trying to understand your own process so that you might explain it to someone else.  One's lack to be able to explain their own work only weakens the concept and spirit of the work itself.  If you explain it to someone and they do understand it but still don't like it, well you've done all you can do, you can't win over everybody.

[Mr. Hamrick]

As Pyro said, we have the right to defend our work but its not always appropriate or necessary to. 

Anyone can say "I don't like that piece of work" but if they don't offer reasons why they don't like it then that is not really a valid criticism. 

Some people will object to anything outside of a particular genre or subject matter.  I've met people who take an immediate disliking to anything secular regardless or what it is, for example.  By the same accord, I know people who dislike anything remotely religious.  Nothing about their dislike is related to the individual work directly just to the fact that it was not a subject matter that they did not approve of. 

I know other people though who will be overly critical of everything.  I collaborate with this guy that I consider a good friend.  He has a tendency though to over criticize everyone's work including our own.  I've had to defend creative decisions before to him (or try to) simply because they were decisions that I made creatively for a reason. 

However, when professors are doing critiques for our portfolios . . . then the less we try to defend it the better in most cases.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

Another important distinction might also be the difference between a critical and a pre-critical response.  One should only concern oneself with the former, for these responses will be interpretations that ideally address the how and the why undergirding the particular effect a work of art has upon the observer. 

Example: "I think/do not think your use of negative space was especially effective in this work because it de-centralises X, Y, and Z, etc., etc."

One can respond to such interpretations with counter-interpretations and carry on a civil discourse on the work, which may include serious differences of opinion but opinion bolstered by demonstrable evidence (which, of course, is open to a certain degree of interpretation in any case).  I am not advocating the oh-so-annoying, pedestrian position that holds, "Ooh!  It's art, so I can say whatever I think about it, and I cannot be wrong."  On the other hand, an interpretive statement that provides sufficient evidence to support its claims is almost always worth heeding, even if one ultimately disagrees, IMHO.  I should also state my bias toward the idea that asserts the artist is not a final authority on the art object; consequently, yes, IMO the artist has the right to respond to critics as yet another critic, but s/he should not expect to utter apodictic interpretations received as such.

The latter (a pre-critical response) fails to express anything more than a subjective position, which, ultimately, will be of no use to the artist seeking constructive criticism.  The problem with this sort of statement is that the observer cannot defend it and the artist cannot defend against it.

Example: "I like/don't like your use of negative space in this work."

Another important aphorism to bear in mind when reception of your work is mixed:
"When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself." --O.W.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and You Know the Rest