This movement originated in America in the 1940s, becoming popular in the 1950s. The key interests of the Abstract Expressionists were freedom of expression and exploring the subconscious. Many artists associated with this movement worked quickly and applied paint in unconventional ways such as pouring or splattering paint directly onto the surface, allowing chance and accident to play a significant role in the creation. One of the most famous Abstract expressionists is Jackson Pollock.

This time i picked up a critique by an artist on not art, not society but the wild nature. Herzog’s critique is valuable precisely to me because it reveals the limits of civilized perception. He put himself to that position voluntarily as determined for the unpredictable experiencing such conditions by convincing other people to place a film production in such conditions to satisfy the lust in his soul for exposing his subjective yet sheer realism contrarily Kinski's romantic approach. I guard his critique because i see that the jungle is not judged here. The human mind is. I think Herzog doesn’t describe the jungle nor universe. He describes what happens to a civilized mind when its illusions are removed. The video: From the production of Aguirre - The Wrath Of God by Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski

In this post my intention is to give you another example as a CCC post, we are still warming up. You see an artist (author) is critiquing another author's style. So i happen to critique his critique (body). First i can say that this is a great critique! It hits the five stars: 🌟 Reasonable: Douglas does not attack Asimov’s intelligence or imagination. He explicitly credits the ideas as terrific. The target is style, not mind. That distinction matters. 🌟 Relevant: Style versus ideas is a foundational tension in literature. Especially in science fiction, where conceptual ambition often outruns prose elegance. This critique hits a real fault line. 🌟 Punctual: The metaphor lands instantly. “American Express junk mail” needs no footnotes. The reader feels it before thinking it. 🌟 Creative: Instead of academic language, Douglas uses a commercial, banal image to critique literary irritation. High ideas framed by low experience. That contrast is surgical. 🌟 Humorous:The insult stings but entertains. The humor disarms defensiveness and keeps the critique alive rather than terminal. But on the other hand i could guard Asimov's style against Douglas' opinion and kill the critique simply as: Asimov’s plainness was always intentional. Clarity as ethics. Prose as glass, not stained cathedral. The irritation Douglas feels might be the cost of accessibility, not a failure of craft. Having a rigid posture doesn't prevent us to get the idea, the audience is always capable to fill the gaps. Just like Big Lebowski i can say "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." 😄 Which critique of mine resonate more within you about the critique? Would you guard the killer or kill the killer?

Don't get me wrong i'm not here to critique the actors of the play here as i haven't seen the entire play yet. Just what caught me off guard and triggered to leave my critique as a killer is the Alfred Molina's character Mark Rothko's preach toward the young artist. In a period of my life i was thinking the same, in time i realized that to be an artist (or a great artist) you don't need to have all the knowledge of philosophy, literature, art, culture. An artist can be completely isolated from the norms of the world's history finding his/her own language in art without knowing even him/herself. I think the character's aggressive suggestion in this scene would be valid if he was talking to a critic instead of an artist; to be able to have a vivid vision and to be able to articulate the artwork's language/style yes a background could be noble, not to feel better or understand better the artist/artwork but to define better to navigate as if the artist/artwork is only a star in a group of constellations in the sky. You can critique my critique now as a guardian or as a killer. You choose. Play: John Logan's Red - Alfred Molina, Alfred Enoch. National Theatre.

Here is my critique as a Guardian. Man Ray’s critique is a clean kill because it checks all five stars of a great critique: 🌟 Reasonable: He critiques uniformity, not technique. 🌟 Relevant: Dada and Surrealism emerged as reactions against discipline, hierarchy, and obedience. 🌟 Punctual: The army metaphor hits instantly. No explanation needed. 🌟 Creative: Exaggeration is used to expose ideology, not individuals. 🌟 Humorous (dark): The insult is sharp, playful, and impersonal. Classic ballet was historically shaped to serve royal power: orchestras as disciplined forces, the maestro as commander, dancers as symbols of order and hierarchy. Man Ray, as a Dada pioneer, speaks from within a movement born to resist exactly this structure. Kill his critique and guard synchronized discipline if you can. Interviewed by Keith Dewhurst in 1972.