Beth Wilson

       I think Beth Wilson is an effective art critic. She uses lots of strong adjectives to really give you a feeling of the artwork's meaning. Wilson only says positive things about the art work she critiques. In the lucid dream article Wilson only gives you just enough information to want to go and look up those described art works; and even, go to an art exhibit. I think it would be interesting to go and see a variety of different art styles and art works from different cultures.
      In the first reading on Kathy Ruttenberg, Wilson starts off by blandly describing her style or "universe." Kathy Ruttenberg is known for sculpting as well as painting women and nature. As you can see in the attached photo to the left, Ruttenberg often fuses women with nature. Even on their skirts, there is a lot of nature. Wilson also goes on to explain that Ruttenberg is different from other artists because she makes women one with the nature. Overall Wilson did an effective job explaining Ruttenberg's style, form, and uniqueness.
      In the Lucid dreaming article, Wilson describes several works of art. At first I believed it to be annoying to describe something and not show a visual image of it, but I now believe that art critics do this to force to reader to look it up themselves. As you can see in the image to the right looks very interesting. It was only briefly described in the writing, and I had to see for myself, what it looked like. This is a very effective strategy. Also if the art critic posted images of all the artworks they described in their writing it may cause people to not go to those art exhibits. The image to the right is Mary Mattingly’s Mach II. It is supposed to be a crashed spaceship-like vehicle. Overall Wilson did a good job in describing the art exhibit as well as some of the works of art.

Art critics

       Criticism is when someone judges the work of another and places their own opinion on there work. Criticism of any kind attracts viewers to an artwork. To be a fair critic, a critic must fully analyze the artwork, as well as the artist's influence who created the art work. There are many things a critic can judge and criticize in art. Being an Art Critic isn't necessarily what everyone makes it out to be. 
       There are many misconceptions about Art Critics.  Many people and Art critics alike view the title art critic in a negative fashion. Many art critics don't like to view works of art in a negative manor, but instead, they prefer to enthuse art work they like. Most art critics do not denote or make an artwork look bad because Art Critics understand that by writing a negative review on an art work; it would only give it more publicity. Unfortunately most other critics do give publicity to things they don't like.
      Some artists dislike art critics because art critics tend to be interested in their views. An artist creates something because they want to, and because it comes from the soul. An art critic may come along and write a review just to get publicity for themselves, even if they don't like it. Also some critics may come from different backgrounds and cultures, which may sway there opinion. Overall, Critisim comes down to the individual, and their opinions and feelings toward the works of art.
    

Urs Fischer

The reading that I selected was from Vitamin 3-D, and it was about the artist Urs Fischer. Urs Fischer usually sculpts things to be out of proportion with size or out of proportion with reality. Very similar to what happens in the Alice in Wonderland series. His theory is that he doesn't create new things, but instead  he further develops whats around him. This artist's goal is to make the viewer stop and question reality for a second.  The typical viewer would think, "Oh I didn't notice that at first, or I never thought I would have seen that before." Usually its takes the viewers a good couple of seconds to notice whats out of proportion; making viewers like the surprise/anticipation feel. Going through one of his art galleries would be fun because everything is wacky, and it causes his viewers imaginations to go wild.. The author of the writing mainly focused on his artworks and his theory. I was disappointed at times because the author would go into great detail about a really interesting sculpture, and not include a picture of it. The author described the top image I included, but there was no picture in the book of it. The author explained his style and how it was to be interpreted. But the author didn't really give any other background information about the artist. Overall, I think the author did a good job explaining what Urs Fischer's art style and what the artist's theory is all about.