Who Gets to Call It Art? - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Who Gets to Call It Art? Reviews

Page 1 of 1
May 28, 2007
You are likely to enjoy this bio-pic to the extent that you buy into the idea that one effete snob ought to define an aesthetic for the rest of us slobs.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
March 1, 2007
Can be enjoyed as a quick overview of the contemporary American art scene.
June 22, 2006
Shot with a Peter Greenaway-like austere impudence and edited brilliantly (by Jed Parker), this is an entertaining movie, and a moving one -- even if, like me, you're not especially fond of these paintings or that scene.
Read More | Original Score: 3.5/4
March 3, 2006
With its snappy, even hectic editing and great archival footage, Who Gets to Call It Art? is loads of fun to watch.
Full Review | Original Score: 3/4
March 2, 2006
This documentary feels stacked on his subject's side.
Full Review | Original Score: B
February 16, 2006
Rosen covers a lot of ground in 80 minutes, and he's picked the right subject to focus on.
Read More | Original Score: B+
February 3, 2006
Peter Rosen's documentary Who Gets to Call It Art? paints an entertaining picture of the cherubic gentleman, who as the first curator of contemporary art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Read More | Original Score: 3/4
February 3, 2006
The film's appeal is for the eyes.
Read More | Original Score: 2.5/4
January 18, 2006
Through his use of green screen and montage, Rosen seems to want to position his film as its own work of Pop Art.
Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/4
November 4, 2005
Both richly complex and immediately accessible.
November 4, 2005
A documentary that is a true work of art.
Read More | Original Score: 5/5
May 25, 2006
hard for us to take too seriously
| Original Score: 3/5
February 3, 2006
The film's flippant style ultimately undermines its material -- and, ironically, makes the American art scene of the '60s appear as shallow and trendy as its detractors always claimed it was.
Read More | Original Score: 2.5/4
February 1, 2006
Clocking in at 80 minutes, this glib, largely uninformative and poorly organized précis of the post-World War II art scene succeeds neither as history nor as art history.
Read More | Original Score: 1/5
January 31, 2006
Surely a figure as crucial as Geldzahler deserves more incisive treatment.
Page 1 of 1