The Proverbial “Body of Work” and The Narrow-Minded Art Critic
Is the person eloquent in one language necessarily a better communicator than one who masters several? Is the person who specializes in playing the violin necessarily a better musician than one who can also play the piano and the clarinet?
Why is it, when art critics have nothing more constructive to say, they always fall back on the tired old “lack of focus” to the detriment of an artist’s body of work? And, more perplexing, why is such criticism never questioned and is so readily acceptable as inalienable truth?
If lack of focus was any kind of measure for the worth of an artist or their body of work, Leonardo Da Vinci would not make the cut. Neither would Michelangelo, Rafael, Beethoven, or Mozart. Edward Weston gets an “F” for photographing everything from nudes through bell peppers to dead pelicans. Ansel Adams should be relegated to amateur status for photographing just about anything with interesting tonality, not to mention being a pianist to boot.
When a critic tells you your work lacks focus, he is really telling you one of two things: A) he has a financial interest in selling art (collectors prize consistency, not always personal expression), or B) he didn’t take the time to understand the roots of your art.
The former is pretty straightforward, so let me elaborate on the latter. Consider the “body of work” metaphor: your fingers, your eyes, and your hair are parts of the same body, but appear completely different. The commonality is not in the shape, size, color, or any other immediately-discernible characteristic. Yet, they are all the product of the same genetic blueprint – the same DNA that makes them parts of one unique whole body. It is thus with art: the common roots of an artistic body of work are the sensibilities of the artist. The same artist can produce a color image of one subject, a B&W image of another, a wood carving, and a poem describing their morning walk, and still have all of them be one consistent body of work – consistent in the sense that all are coming from the same place, emanating from the same creative nucleus, and representing the same vision and ideas. Anyone who fails to see the focus is simply not looking hard enough.
A sad consequence of such narrow-minded criticism is that many would-be multi-talented artists end up crippling their own creative avenues under the dictum that they need “more focus”.
Can you imagine Beethoven avoiding symphonies because he was “just a concerto composer” or because he needed to focus on string quartets? How about Michelangelo refusing to paint the Sistine Chapel because he was focusing on sculptures, or Picasso never becoming a Cubist because he was forever focused and stuck in his Blue Period?
Come on, critics, do you honestly want to limit the growth of artists and to lock them into a repetitive, narrowly-focused churn for the rest of their careers? Give up this silly notion of looking for obvious similarities and dig deeper: look for the soul of an artist, not for their sales potential! Don’t be in the way of artists evolving and exploring and discovering! It’s time to let go of the old “lack of focus” crutch. It is not self-evident truth and, more often than not, is neither helpful to the artist nor to the art. How many artists came home depressed and defeated from a review after hearing such a blunt missive? How many of those may end up giving up on experimentation and discovering their true calling because of it? If there is even one such person – you are guilty; guilty of not giving them due consideration, and maybe guilty of hindering their growth or even the growth of art itself. Can you say with confidence that it wasn’t you who failed to see the proverbial DNA underlying a true and diverse body of work? Have you truly and honestly looked hard enough before dismissing a portfolio with a failsafe excuse?
Artists – look inside yourselves, pick whatever form of expression feels right. As long as you’re true to your own calling, your work – whatever it is, and in whatever media – will never lack focus. The focal point is YOU.
Guy
Category: Rants and Raves, Thoughts and Musings







Thank you so much for that. I have been troubled by my own work and its eclectic swings. I’ve wondered if I “lack focus”. That was very helpful Guy and much appreciated.
[...] occasionally venturing outside the walls others seek to build around his work. You’ll find it HERE. Hope you enjoy [...]
Hey Guy
A great example of why a few days in the mountains wandering around with you would be a treat; insightful commentary, as always.
Great image.
Cheers
Carl
Yay verily. Well said, Guy.
Well written essay Guy. And I should ask – “Are such criticisms accepted broadly?” I am not sure. It seems for every critic, there is someone calling him a crackpot.
Mark, as well they should! It’s always good to have checks and balances. Nobody should be immune from criticism and from having their motives or assertions called into question, not even critics.
Guy
Guy,
Interesting read. I think I agree with you. The problem with critics is that they often don’t know their job. I believe they should be telling me about the work they are looking at, putting it into context historically and with respect to the artist themselves. What they shouldn’t be doing is condemning it because it doesn’t fit their ideals.
However, I do find that I enjoy viewing a cohesive body of work more than subject matter that goes everywhere. Of course that is a matter of scale right? I mean I work within the genre of nature, but there is a difference between birds and landscapes that some would consider two different bodies of work. Others may be fine with just seeing me as a nature photographer. If I put sports and portrait work on display with nature imagery, I think most viewers would have trouble wrapping themselves around that. Maybe it’s human nature to want to peg hole artists in order to help understand them?
I do think critics are OK with seperate bodies of work so that I may have a sports body and a nature body. I think the problem occurs when the bodies get intermingled (unless of course if the subject is a theme like “motion”). It’s a complex issue.
Hi Guy,
What a wonderful image! I really like the graphic design of it. Great colors and lighting. I read your article on OP…the images are amazing.
Regards,
Iris
Guy,
Very interesting points that you raise. Of course, critics by definition view it as this role in life to be critical. In performing that task, they should take into consideration the “body” on one’s work. I think that is one of your major points. To then criticism art for “Lack of Focus” to me seems pointless. Each work stands on its on. The fact that several pieces of work are good or bad, should not deter from the merits of the piece in question. Again as you point out, many great artists have chosen to express themselves or their vision in multiple ways. To suggest that doing so is a lack of focus is silly. Each day brings us a new vision.
Best Regards,
Michael