![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have never taken part in a workshop in my life and I don't intend to. I will accept criticism from people who wanted to read my work for its own sake, or from teachers; either way, from individuals. But my experience of seminars and other group discussions at college is that they are one-half a waste of time and another half a way of structurally missing an opportunity. People whose opinion you value are too nervous to subject it to the group; you have to put up with people whose opinion you despise, merely because they are in the group; and because of time constraints, there is rarely - make that NEVER - an opportunity for anyone to go in the depth any subject needs. The whole idea of group discussion seems to me just as inefficient and obstructive as all other modern manifestations of the idolatry of group behaviour; no wonder that Oxford knows nothing of it, and that the only educational paths it employs are the individual conversation between tutor and student, and the collective address between lecturer and class.
But if that is bad enough in the field of study, it is wholly intolerable in the field of art. Can you imagine Jack Kirby or Charles M.Schulz sitting around listening to one or two dozen people chosen at random delivering their more or less uninformed opinions on their work? Such sessions, if anyone were insane enough to set one up, would result in one of two things: either the artist storming out in rage (and don't think that Charles Schulz was incapable of rage: his famously mild temper turned to severing amd bludgeoning steel any time that an ill-advised editor made an unnecessary change in his work); or else, should it happen that those present really appreciated the genius and originality of the artists, it would end in the latter not coming back because they had heard nothing but compliments.
The bottom line is that constructive and useful criticism, even devastaing criticism, only comes from individuals. Groups constrain some individuals and give others far too much space. And they are lethal to imagination: every name added to the list of people involved in writing anything increases by 25% the likelihood that it will be bad. The worst written movie I have seen recently had four credited scriptwriters. I loathe group encounters in principle and from experience; I had every opportunity to assess their value; and you will never, ever see me near one.
But if that is bad enough in the field of study, it is wholly intolerable in the field of art. Can you imagine Jack Kirby or Charles M.Schulz sitting around listening to one or two dozen people chosen at random delivering their more or less uninformed opinions on their work? Such sessions, if anyone were insane enough to set one up, would result in one of two things: either the artist storming out in rage (and don't think that Charles Schulz was incapable of rage: his famously mild temper turned to severing amd bludgeoning steel any time that an ill-advised editor made an unnecessary change in his work); or else, should it happen that those present really appreciated the genius and originality of the artists, it would end in the latter not coming back because they had heard nothing but compliments.
The bottom line is that constructive and useful criticism, even devastaing criticism, only comes from individuals. Groups constrain some individuals and give others far too much space. And they are lethal to imagination: every name added to the list of people involved in writing anything increases by 25% the likelihood that it will be bad. The worst written movie I have seen recently had four credited scriptwriters. I loathe group encounters in principle and from experience; I had every opportunity to assess their value; and you will never, ever see me near one.
