SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Peer-reviewing is one of the most important aspects of Scientific Research. It is essential for science to follow the right path. Most of the time in science both young and old scientists (we can also use the words junior or senior scientists)  will have the same right and their reviews will have the same value as intelligence, logic and reasoning power are not anybody's property and everybody in science can have them. So anybody who works in your field and has deep knowledge about the subject can review your work, tell you whether or not you are going in the right direction in your research, the correct way to follow if you are on the wrong side, whether your work and results you got followed all the rules and obtained in a fair manner,  if not why and where you went wrong.  This process is followed in the interest of science and everybody in the field of science accepts it as part and parcel of their work as it is done in a scientific and unbiased way following all rules using logic and reasoning power and most importantly with proof! Nobody here can say,  'I don't accept peer-reviewing of my work as I am the sole authority on the subject and therefore cannot go wrong'. It is against scientific way of life. When the truth is brought before you, you got to accept it. There is no other go. Ego and self-centeredness have no place in the world of good science. Therefore, everybody in the scientific world accepts that peer-reviewing is very important for science's development and progress.

After seeing so much in the Art world and noticing how fellow artists see and comment on the work of other artists, I started wondering whether peer-reviewing is relevant in art.

"Art Criticism" is important in art. It is usually done by "experts" or  seniors in art. But do the critics know everything about art? "No" is my firm answer (Please read why I say this here :  http://kkartlab.in/group/Criticisms/forum/topics/art-critics-answer... ). Then how can they do it flawlessly? Moreover, can art critics overcome 'confirmation bias'? Very difficult! Therefore, art criticism cannot always be correct. When the process itself is flawed, how can it help art and its progress?

On several art networks and websites, I have seen some "reviewing" by friends of artists. Most of the time, these reviews will be in the form of "well done", "beautiful", "wow", "the composition is excellent", "the colour combination is spot on" etc. etc.  Need not say how positive they are. The artist might feel very happy and it might boost his or her morale. But how can it help in correcting his/her flaws and  inadequacies? It is said that artists are very emotional and closely attached to their works. And it is feared that any criticism of their works "might not be taken in the right perspective"! So the peers of artists usually don't say the truth.

Now, may I ask the question why  artists can't be as straight forward as scientists and say what has to be said about their peers work and why their friends can't be as open-minded as scientists in accepting the truth? Can't they put their emotions on leash for the benefit of art and artists? Do they fear if they get negative publicity, they will not get a good market share? Don't they realize how good criticisms can make them think more, work more and get better and better results which in turn can earn them both name and fame and a great market value?!

In the art world everything is based on perception and market manipulation. So each and every review need not be spot on and every criticism need not be unbiased. In such a context peer-reviewing in art can take one to a certain point only. However, if honest and unbiased approach is followed by critics and peers, I don't see why peer-reviewing can't benefit the Art World too!

Views: 81

Reply to This

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service