The validity of reviewing art
Last night, on my way home from my Harris workshop, I had to drive through Skye and then through Glencoe. In an attempt to reduce the strain of the journey in my car, I listened to an hours debate about cinema, music and arts on BBC Radio 2. I found the review in many ways rather interesting, and in other ways, I couldn’t wait to find the reviewers and hit them over their heads for being…. reviewers.
The reason for this was the review of Kate Bush’s new album 50 words for snow, due for release on Monday, but for some reason, Amazon have delivered to my home this Friday. Last night, after the rather cack review of 50 words for snow, where the reviewers found the album dull and not as precent as some of Kate’s earlier work, I found myself listening to her new album and from the first song, being entirely drawn in, to a world of snow, snowflakes, and a landscape in my mind filled with deep tones of piano and mature vocals ushered by Kate. Yep, you can tell I love Kate’s new album.
I bring this up as a topic for discussion, because I find most of Kate Bush’s work takes a lot of time to appreciate. I find that her albums, particularly Ariel and the new one, seem to get better with every listen, and certainly, they become part of my life over several years, and seem to accompany me on many of my photographic journeys.
I don’t normally listen to reviews, or critics on TV or Radio. Often they lack objectivity. They should consider where the artist has been, where they’re going, and inform the public of how they feel their new work relates to what they’ve done in the past. Anything else is of little consequence, because art in general, needs time to be appreciated, understood, and find its place in our culture.
Surely this is the same as any art?
In the case of making photographs, some of my own have had to ‘earn’ their place in my own heart. Some were considered throw away efforts at the time, only to become ones that I now feel were pivotal in the direction I took in what I was doing, or maybe I feel they showed me a new door in my efforts. Some are appreciated over time, more for what they became through familiarity, rather than what I thought they should be (and failed to be) at the time of exposure.
Surely, if we are to be objective about what we do, we must give our art space to be what it is. Let it live, even as a failure? There have been plenty of pieces of art created that were considered uninteresting, average, or plain failures at the time they were created, but have, over time, become classics. Maybe this is more to do with era, and the change in tastes that happen over time. Some things fit ‘now’ and are instant hits, and will, as time progresses, become very dated, other art objects gain a slow appreciation, and others are discovered much later when the time is right for them to be appreciated.
If it were me, I wouldn’t have been so hasty with the review of Kate’s new album. I would give it a chance to show us just what it truly is.
Maybe we should all do that with our photographic efforts too?
As a self-professed fan, isn’t it possible you are at least as, if not more subjective than the reviewers?
Comment by Adam_B — 22 November, 2011 @ 6:14 pm
Absolutely.
I’m a huge fan, but I don’t like everything she does.
But I do give her songs a chance to earn a place in my heart, and I think this is what all art deserves – a chance.
This was the point of my article, which is interesting, because you’ve focussed on another aspect all together.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 22 November, 2011 @ 8:43 pm
Hi Bruce,
I concur with much of the above. Ariel is a good example: I was disappointed when I first heard it, yet every time I listen to it again (I wasn’t /that/ disappointed) it becomes better (to me, obviously). This is especially true when listening and doing nothing else whatsoever, that being pretty much the only way I listen to music these days. All art requires focus and isolation (from distractions) to appreciate it, or at least to give oneself the /opportunity/ to appreciate it.
I’m sure – now that you’ve mentioned it! – that this is entirely the same with images of all kinds – why wouldn’t it be really?
An interesting piece, to me, as I’d not consciously thought about this idea of focusing on images in the same way as I do with music before.
Comment by MikeDGreen — 22 November, 2011 @ 11:35 pm
Hi Mike,
Yes, I brought up Bush’s new album, for that reason. Her music always takes time to get to know and understand. She’s never immediately apparent with what she’s doing, and in many ways, that is often the hallmark of great song writing. Those albums you own, that you never tire of, that have grown on you over the years…. you know the ones, as do I (Talk Talk’s Spirit of Eden is a case in point for me).
I certainly have images of my own that I’m embarrassed about. What was once something I was proud of, is now something I’d much rather hide. But the opposite is true too: Ones which I felt were ok at the time of capture, have now, over time, taken on a presence, or signify something much more than I thought they would.
All images have personalities. They find a space in our lives and some of them grow with us.
So I find it hard when reviews of any art, are dismissive. I felt the Radio 2 review was of that nature. Rather than saying ‘this seems an impenetrable piece of work by Kate Bush, but one that may grow on your in time’, they said ‘I tried to like this, but I couldn’t. It was dull and not a precent as her other earlier work’. Which I find rather tiresome. A reviewer should not hold onto the past… that is the efforts of a fan who can’t let go of what the artist did in the past (and now, nothing can surpass it).
I often feel that when we are exposed to art, it marks our lives. Each time I hear ‘Running up that hill’ by Kate bush, I’m right back at School, it’s 1985, and it reminds me of who I was at the time. Some people can’t move on from what they consider the ‘hey day’ of an artist, and enjoy their newer work for the simple fact it’s different, and not a regurgitation of what they consider to be their finest work.
Art, should be given a chance to earn a place in our hearts, and sometimes, it takes years before we’re ready to embrace or understand it.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 23 November, 2011 @ 12:46 am
Ah – but I thought ‘Spirit of Eden’ was stunningly good the very first time I heard it. I do know exactly what you mean, and dismissive ‘reviews’ are infuriating when they’re of work which, whether you end up liking it or not, /requires/ time to find out. Ah well :-\ As to the whole ‘heyday’ thing: yes, I agree!
Comment by MikeDGreen — 23 November, 2011 @ 1:01 am
Yes, same for me. Spirit of Eden was a ‘wow’ moment, but I knew far too many people who found it atonal, hard to understand, because it was not conventional, it came from left of centre, just when Talk Talk were at the height of their commercial powers. It’s one of my favourite albums and I’m deeply attached to it.
Interestingly, the press gave it a really bad time upon its release, but these days it’s cited as the inspiration behind Radiohead and a lot of the other ‘gloomy’ bands. It’s also usually in the top 100 best albums of all time.
Sometimes, art isn’t ready to be appreciated, is a slow burner, and finds its place much later on.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 23 November, 2011 @ 1:11 am
Well the problem is that “reviews” are pretty much always based on first impressions, so something which has a quick impact – but not necessarily much staying power – is going to get a great review, and something which takes longer to get into but never outstays its welcome is less likely to impress.
Why are reviews conducted just as the subject comes to market ? Well, precisely for that – marketing. Assuming the artist needs sales, then he/she needs reviews, of one kind or another. Whereas it might be better to hold off a while – like maybe a lifetime – to get a full impression. A prime example in the world of music would be Nick Drake. It isn’t so much that he was a total unknown when he was alive – just that he got bad reviews. And now his reputation never stops growing.
I guess there’s a difference between quick, filler, rush-to-deadlime “reviews” and “appreciations”. I’m sure KB could release here today, gone tomorrow material if she wanted to. But she really doesn’t need to do that.
I’m half way through my first listen to 50 Words for Snow, so I’m a bit distracted. I think it’s fabulous. So far not a weak spot and there is no KB album so far I can’t say the same for.
Oh, an Laughing Stock is waaay better than Spirit :-)
Comment by David Mantripp — 23 November, 2011 @ 8:27 pm
I entirely agree, except for the bit about Laughing Stock, which I like very much, but I think it’s a different album from Spirit :-)
I believe in you gets me every time.
Glad you like 50 words…. I’m not surprised you do, and I agree – most of her albums are patchy, but I feel she’s hit a mature stride with Ariel and now this one.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 23 November, 2011 @ 8:58 pm
Hi Bruce,
50 Words was one of the cristmas gifts I had for my wife, and now I find myself listening to this music for hours this evening. It creates such a wonderful tranquil mood, I can´t stop to enjoy, even though the snow is missing this year. Kate Bush was kind of a star here in Germany when I first met the girl who´s my wife now, more than 25 years ago. 50 Words truly is a bit different from Wuthering Heights, but I really like it.
Comment by Bernhard — 24 December, 2011 @ 10:08 pm