The Seat Manifesto
For all the erudition of the written criticism or the limitations ofits author, it always expresses a personal position. This criticism, as much as well argued, it will always be a single voice that it can even sound totalitarian if there are other opinions in its environment, that remain unspoken.
Art conversations are an opportunity to include different streams of thought and give birth to new ones. They can deploy the entire spectrum of approval or disapproval of a work of art, but more importantly, they represent different worldviews.
We have heard many calls for criticism to be level and be professional. But why is criticism still insufficiently professional, when it is too sharp and disapproving, and when it comes down to "heart" or "thumb" is desirable and generally good? Don't they have the right and the uneducated, the common people, not necessarily the friends and for the artist's relatives to have an opinion? Art is only for the chosen do you? Can only they comment? Should negative criticism be speaking only at the table with a drink? Can we accept criticism without it consider a declaration of war on our ego?