maxima_x_axiom

I essentially agree with this... I do feel that there is value in critiquing the impact a piece of art has on society and consciousness (for example, the distinction between art and propaganda tends to be the extent to which it is used to manipulate and spread falsehoods). However, I feel that this value is mostly of benefit to the artist personally and to the audience, for the sake of deeper understanding and reflection...it is a delicate, subjective philosophical discourse. It is also an intimate relationship, deepening little by little. Can you imagine if somebody you just met began looking you up and down, picking out your faults and demeaning you publicly? (De-meaning, what an interesting concept.)

In other words, I believe art criticism is meant to be its own branch of art, subject to its own self-awareness (and from largely within the artistic community). Ratings systems and "do's and don'ts" are much more problematic, and prone to prejudice. We critique each other's art just as we do each other's physical appearance: with great injustice and misunderstanding. The trouble with art school, aside from massive financial debt and funneling young impressionable students directly into using their gifts for advertising (aka propaganda), is best summed up by an old adage: One person's trash is another person's treasure.