What are the critics?
 

As an artist and a man who love art, I have often wondered what the critics want? "What they show in their works that are not visible to the eye, what can not be understood looking directly at the work of art? How do their views contribute to the creativity of an artist, but the other puts an end? This subjective view, or attempt an objective analysis of creativity? I would like to hear from the critics and art historians.

What could be simpler?

The task of the critic - to give information about the artist, as well as to express in words how he perceives the art.

That's it.

If a critic - an interesting personality and knows how to write, his texts on art will be interesting and different.

This is a task of the historian of art.

Now all the critics and criticism is essentially an art dealer, but before they performed the ideological task of the party in engaging 'the people' to 'true art. "That's all .:o

True, but expressing his views on the work of a critic of the artist becomes his tolkovatelem.Etakim intermediary between artist and audience massoy.Lyudi beginning to see the artist (his paintings)
through the prism of criticism, which may not always be objective.

One might think that "people" read the critics. :D

Added after 2 minutes
Where is that "The mass of spectators? :)

Well written the same article, published biographies, research tvorchestva.Odnogo my friend "investigated." I was told that his work comes from Pirosmani, and he himself always fancied impressionist .:)

I suspect that yes, all this is written ...
But "whether it be"? How is this a "viewing masses?
:D

Art historian studies the history of art, and the critic says and informs him about contemporary art.

Added after 2 minutes
Ideally, the critic should be an ideal spectator, able to express their feelings, rather than "mediator."

Added after 2 minutes
Ideally, the critic should be an ideal spectator, able to express their feelings, rather than "mediator."

And what does the ideal audience?