Last Tuesday’s class we discussed voice and tone more in depth as well as how each writer/critic has a specific one they choose to use. We were assigned four reading by critics who greatly differed from one another varying from scholarly to sarcastic and intimate to distant. I found this to be very helpful because I myself was unsure on how to execute this in my own writings. I was not sure if my personal voice and tone were being presented in my writings or if they sounded just like another art jargon filled essay, absent of my own ideas or style. I quickly learned not all exhibition reviews or critical analysis papers have to necessarily include philosophic language, constant Kant references (although he is wise), or fluffed up metaphors. However, depending on the audience those characteristics are both expected and enjoyed. For example, we read a paper by Boris Groys and another by Jerry Saltz both of which are well known having similar audiences in the art world, but their voice and tone are on completely different sides of the spectrum from one another. Both readings I enjoyed and found interesting but I mainly focused in on their own use of voice and tone, Jerry Saltz was informative and critical while maintaining a sort of satirical and comedic tone, poking fun at both himself and the present art world. While Boris Groys’s writing was highly informative but I felt he had a more intimate connection with what he was discussing, even though he included philosophical language and Kant references. I felt as though the sarcastic and satirical tone of Saltz writing created a sort of distance between him and what was being discussed, lacking that intimacy. Both writings showed that there are multiple ways to show voice and tone.