In the visual arts this " (creative) kind of criticism" that Phil and Richard are talking about is called curating.
A curator absolutely shapes how individual works are understood by controlling the context in which they are seen. A curator is analogous to the role of an editor in literary terms. Though, very often, in the visual arts, curators write catalog essays for their exhibitions, so they in fact function overtly as critics. I can recall several exhibitions that have entirely revamped how a particular artist's work is seen historically.
Curating is an art-form in itself, more difficult than it might seem. Inspired curators make connections between works and between artists that highlight the intrinsic properties of individual pieces or, of one artist's oeuvre in relation to another's. Or as Phil says, "shift the critical mindset or frame of reference." I think NOON and Lilliput Review are a great examples of this for the reasons Phil and Richard have commented. The editorial/curatorial process of a group of poems/artworks always shifts the connotations of individual works, as in the example that Richard gives of placing two WC Williams poems side by side.
Unfortunately, there has been a trend in the visual arts for curators to want to take center stage for career building purposes—the curator's name is increasingly the first thing one reads on an exhibition announcement. So, on the flip side of thoughtful curating are shows that are more about building a roster of art-stars organized rather lazily around some trendy topic. In other words, the driving force is not really the work itself and the curator has not done the research, or does not have the background, to justify their curatorial premise. When done poorly, it seems that curators are frustrated artists who want to have their own show. Of course one can decide not to submit work to a given journal if one feels the way things are put together are lower than one's quality standards, though in the visual arts, curators often become the gate-keepers to all kinds of things like grant funding, access to collections, etc. etc. So, I have mixed feelings about this whole thing, because curators--and many editors-- in the end, have the upper hand in a power relationship.
However, that said, I would so welcome more journals--or presses-- that concentrate on short poetry and include haiku and tanka as part of a diverse mix of approaches. Perhaps these efforts could produce issues that juxtapose a handful of poets along with a critical essay, or pick a theme to curate around, again with a critical essay examining that theme. (Richard, your Natural Night).
A curator absolutely shapes how individual works are understood by controlling the context in which they are seen. A curator is analogous to the role of an editor in literary terms. Though, very often, in the visual arts, curators write catalog essays for their exhibitions, so they in fact function overtly as critics. I can recall several exhibitions that have entirely revamped how a particular artist's work is seen historically.
Curating is an art-form in itself, more difficult than it might seem. Inspired curators make connections between works and between artists that highlight the intrinsic properties of individual pieces or, of one artist's oeuvre in relation to another's. Or as Phil says, "shift the critical mindset or frame of reference." I think NOON and Lilliput Review are a great examples of this for the reasons Phil and Richard have commented. The editorial/curatorial process of a group of poems/artworks always shifts the connotations of individual works, as in the example that Richard gives of placing two WC Williams poems side by side.
Unfortunately, there has been a trend in the visual arts for curators to want to take center stage for career building purposes—the curator's name is increasingly the first thing one reads on an exhibition announcement. So, on the flip side of thoughtful curating are shows that are more about building a roster of art-stars organized rather lazily around some trendy topic. In other words, the driving force is not really the work itself and the curator has not done the research, or does not have the background, to justify their curatorial premise. When done poorly, it seems that curators are frustrated artists who want to have their own show. Of course one can decide not to submit work to a given journal if one feels the way things are put together are lower than one's quality standards, though in the visual arts, curators often become the gate-keepers to all kinds of things like grant funding, access to collections, etc. etc. So, I have mixed feelings about this whole thing, because curators--and many editors-- in the end, have the upper hand in a power relationship.
However, that said, I would so welcome more journals--or presses-- that concentrate on short poetry and include haiku and tanka as part of a diverse mix of approaches. Perhaps these efforts could produce issues that juxtapose a handful of poets along with a critical essay, or pick a theme to curate around, again with a critical essay examining that theme. (Richard, your Natural Night).