Li Xianting's attitude of arts criticism & comments

In this period of cultural transition, what we need is not to choose the "good"
painting like a connoisseur might do, but to choose the works involving cultural
and artistic movements and producing "significance".


Comment: "Significance" can still be major or minor, superior or inferior.

In fact, there is no confirmatory or invariable concept of arts. And in fashiona
ble words, there is no essence of arts. Critics prove their comprehension of certain focuses in a certain age through recommending new artists; for these focuses imply the pivot of the unique values or significance of an age, in which it differs from others. At this point critics are more like artists, and their works are the artists, trends and phenomenon of art they discover and introduce. I, myself constantly, introduce new artists and tendencies of art.

Comment: Since it is unnecessary to distinguish good from bad, and just let it happen - "Everyone is an artist".

Modern people's sense and concept of living, which constitute culture and the humanistic context, are my first criterion for judging arts. Anything that can be called arts is firstly modern people's expression of their sensations towards life. Sincerity and individuality are always of top priority in arts. The so-called "age" often stands for "the other register" in modern space. Stern thinks that art "extricates from social traditions and controls by its own power", and "marginal subjects of a generation that strive to be recognized will be understood in the next generation". The primary responsibility of critics is to redefine arts by
discovering and promoting new artists. The top quality of critics is due to their experience, observation and sense towards life and the existing living environment.The sense and concept of 'living' as a human inner world are not arts themselves. Artis the expression of feeling. Of course, I'm not stressing all sense of living. Some are not suitable or able to be expressed by the language of arts.

Comment: Real artists have broken through the limit of "suitable or able" again and again.

If possible, one should accumulate concrete feelings about works based on the knowledge of originals. If not, press, in the second place, is also quite important. All descriptions in writings of art history, art criticism and art theory are works according to others' eyes. What I am emphasizing here is not the enthusiasm in the describers' language, new theories and terms, but one's own feelings to art works. Of course I am not arguing against doing much reading, on the contrary, I am always awe-struck by erudite scholars. But the problem is that, without feelings for art works and the living environment, one still can't become a good critic even if erudite.

Comment: Does it mean that common view can be put aside when stressing the unique sensation of criticism.

There are often some reviews in good written language and containing a quite good theoretical viewpoint. However, the works they recommend are always disappointing. You'll never understand how these shabby works got such high praise.

Comment: Making carping comments on the arts is the common failing of those big critics who have just finished reading a couple of books on philosophy. Except for those piles of translated or invented concepts and senseless sentences, these critics possess little visual experience and sensation of the arts.

Arts critics are just not pedants but people who have the acute sense of an artist.

Comment: What if the critic has a vague sense?

Critics are more like people who savour the flavor of wines and sense of perception is the most important capability. Wines made by artists will be differentiated by this sense of perception.

Comment: Who is to differentiate the critics' senses of perception?