Matt Kozusko wrote: > I think Jim's point was simply that a person should understand the ideas > or opinions he is responding to before he undertakes to critique them. > For instance, a person taking a course in Derrida should understand > whatever part of Derrida is being studied before responding to it. But that's the point. Ostensibly, the course *wasn't* about Derrida. It was supposed to be about Dadaism and Surrealism and a lot of other art movements I was interested in for the paintings themselves, not what was said about them. Naturally criticism is an integral part of art study, but it shouldn't be 100%. And I reiterate my position that you don't need to have read up on the criticism to interpret and appreciate a work of art - be it a book or a painting or whatever.