Chuck Klosterman Quotes

The art critics on some of Britain's newspapers could as easily have been assigned gardening or travel, and been cheerfully employed for life.

I'm 68 and a half years old; I grew up with newspapers; I love newspapers; I love the news business. I started CNN; I'm a journalist and proud of it.

The men of the press, who despised their own profession, did not know why they were enjoying it today. One of them, a young man with years of notorious success behind him and a cynical look of twice his age, said suddenly, 'I know what I'd like to be: I wish I could be a man who covers news!'

I cherish the review-as-literature; as lapidary journalism in the eighteenth-century mode, the last hard sparkling diamond in theessayists's tarnished crown. To me, writing a good review is not just a way to make extra money, but a sacred duty.

Nothing touches a work of art so little as words of criticism: they always result in more or less fortunate misunderstandings.

I run a couple of newspapers. What do you do?

I think it is the responsibility of critics to rely less strenuously on, to use a Hollywood phrase, "what they can live with," and more on an examination of the works of art from an aesthetic and clinical point of view.

I don't feel any real animosity towards critics when they write negative things. I think some are more perceptive than others. Some are very knowledgeable about painting. But it isn't something I have any influence over, so there isn't any point in worrying about it.

I've been getting pulled from newspapers for my entire career.

I am a hard-news journalist. That is what I do.

I was a Kannada journalist and had worked in 'Samyukta Karnataka' newspaper as a proofreader.

My father was a journalist. He used to write for 'Blitz' tabloid.

Any work of art that can be understood is the product of journalism. The rest, called literature, is a dossier of human imbecility for the guidance of future professors.

Nothing touches a work of art so little as criticism.

We read critics for the perceptions, for what they tell us that we didn't fully grasp when we saw the work. The judgments we can usually make for ourselves.

I like to report. I like to go to the newsmakers. I like to get out. I've heard about people talking about the anchor as the voice of god. That set is not an altar. It's a great job, I love doing it, but I don't take that role as my identity - the anchorman - it sounds very old-fashioned.

If the work of art is good enough, it must not be criticized for its theme. I don't think it can be argued.

Every art critic and every writer doesn't have a frame to start off from. If I made a statement saying, "This is Abstract Expressionism," they could go, "Well, he failed miserably," or, "Fantastic, this is a new genius!" But in art history, I don't see any of the artists I like spewing bullshit. I don't see anyone recording it or pronouncing what they were doing.

I've never worked for a newspaper. I've had some very bad reviews in newspapers.

Journalism is not a precise science, it's a crude art

The function of criticism is the reeducation of perception of works of art? The conception that its business is to appraise, to judge in the legal and moral sense, arrests the perception of those who are influenced by the criticism that assumes this task.

I've always been more interested in the content of our newspapers, political positions day to day, the thrill of communicating with people through words that I am in the pure business aspects.

She said she was working for the ABC news, it was as much of the alphabet as she knew how to use.

I get a great laugh from artists who ridicule the critics as parasites and artists manqués — sucha horrible joke. I can’t imagine a more perfect art form, a moreperfect career than criticism. I can’t imagine anything more valuableto do.

Given my calling I had to stumble across people who felt the same way. I was a young reporter.