Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
An enemy who criticizes you is always better than a friend who praises you! True! But to criticize something, there should be a qualification and a justification!
I was told by few art critics that journalists who cover art events don't know much about art & therefore cannot do justice to the art work descriptions in their write-ups.
It made me think. And I wondered how much justice art critics can do to my work if I ask them to analyse it.
Before reading further, please visit my website http://www.kkartfromscience.com & see my work.
Now, if a critic wants to analyse my work, he has to understand deeply scientific theories, religion and culture I was born into, philosophy & logic also apart from art. He has to follow the thought process that went through my mind while I was bringing together these varied fields - analyzing each one & trying to co-relate them. Then he has to understand what pain I underwent to represent my thoughts in the art form for the world to see.
If he can do all this then only he can do justice to my work. If he is just an expert only in art, he can never fully understand my work. Without understanding it properly, how can he critically analyse my work? A little bit of scientific knowledge won't do! Can partial picture analysis be justified?
There are various categories in science related art. Critics should first learn all about them, try to distinguish one from the other and judge the works accordingly. They should not criticize sci-art works using the parameters of ‘standard art’.
An interdisciplinary researcher must face the challenge of being proficient in two (or multiple) different research areas! Not only must s/he be familiar with key principles and methodology in each area, but also understand baseless "biases" and "dogmas" that are a result of inbreeding, and struggle to fight these, as new knowledge emerges from her/his research. An unenviable task indeed! I want to emphasize here the pointlessness of evaluating such researchers work with conventional metrics.
Only a specialist in both the fields of science and art can do justice to my work by providing constructive criticism. Of course anybody can try to do destructive criticism with little knowledge about science based art. My request to them....
Seek first to understand... there will always be time later for judgment (quote by Michael Jeffreys)
So, art critics all over the world answer me please, can you still criticize my work & justify it?
If any one of you can do it, please let me know.
I am surprised that nobody answered your excellent discussion, Krishna.
I feel very close to your view here. I never pay any attention to critics and curators who are mostly third party money seekers, I think.
The person who better appreciates the work of the artist is the buyer, even if the buyer never met the artist.
The buyer provides money, and nobody provides money if money does not bring a feedback. So the buyer understands why he provides money.
If some buyers come into a competition to obtain an artwork, it means that this artwork has a cultural meaning. The only "critic" I rely upon is the price that the artwork reaches at auction.
Competitors are not enemies. They are people who keep reminding you of your own shortcomings - Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev
Phillip H George via DrKrishna KumariChalla
19 hours ago ·
India has a beautiful star of enlightenment named DrKrishna KumariChalla who loves to paint wonderful paintings that have meaning written in her higher thoughts to religion, science and art, along time her war started will those of unwilling minds to accepted her newly invented art forms as belonging to art & science, They battle her very move saying and writing art & science have nothing in common, the two shouldn't be mixed together.
All in this old world won't be known there isn't enough time for the human body and mind to do so or learn all there is; yet there's will be those persons that believe hardheadedly they have all knowledgeable rights for setting all standards of what's will be cataloged as factual, thus within their known world they bold boxed everything away. Thus closing all newer ways of creative thoughts which do transformed into visible art-forms or Modern Art Works, then they say boldly nothing was achieved by the artist at hand. "WILL Welcome to the flat world of the Bold Status Quo, cause they think they know it all & all is set within their minds stonewalling."
What good comes from holding back the creative minds?
"Why not let the newer mind add their stones which prove to be factual & AGAIN Why not let them lay their hard earned stones of personal gain's onto the wall of knowledges?"
To do so or ones allowed would set in place the higher plains of achievements, and light the way for Everyone so they too can find the empty spaces where All are Welcomed to ADD Their Stones!
A lot of times when there's a changing in the Status Quo is when the old minds pass away; when will they every learn this Old World Isn't Flat Anymore, And For Now It's The Most Modern Age of ALL For Mankind.-PHG & NANO CAT "MEOW!!"
Yes, krishna. Artists think they can criticize your work without realizing that it needs some knowledge to analyse science related work. It shows their enthusiasm but they can never really justify their analysis done with partial knowledge.
Again this shows your confidence!