Michael Thompson, Kill All Artists (Cynic), 2000.On March 7 I'll be joining a panel to discuss art criticism, old media, new media, and dead media. "The Role of the Arts Writer: Critiquing Art Criticism" is the fifth in the Framework panel series held by Transformer Gallery; the panel will assemble at Provisions Library.
The other panelists include Rachel Beckman, who does the arts beat for the Washington Post; Glenn Dixon, former arts editor at the Washington City Paper and current WaPo Express contributor; Corcoran instructor and author Andy Grundberg; and Glenn Harper, editor of Sculpture. Hirshhorn curatorial research associate and manager of interpretive programs Ryan Hill will moderate; he, by the way, will be giving a lunchtime talk on Arshile Gorky and another one on March 2 about the current Horn of Hirsh show, "Refract, Reflect, Project".
Okay, names and hyperlinks dropped! With that out of the way, let's kick off the panel now.
One thing that I—as the lone, lowly new media writer—have to emphasize is that new media isn't the end of editorial standards for art criticism. There is an editing process that takes place, though it's a distributed process; and anyway, old media institutions are absorbing new media, for better and for worse; and anyway, it's not as if traditional media outlets don't have their own pitfalls. Washington Post art reviews are written with an eigth-grade audience in mind not because Blake Gopnik is stupid—not because Blake Gopnik thinks you're stupid—but because the Washington Post thinks you're stupid. Jessica Dawson's gallery reviews are only ever about 100 words long not because she has only 100 words' worth of ideas—not because local shows are only worth 100 words—but because the Washington Post doesn't give a fig more than that.
New media has unique problems that go well beyond not-being-old-media. The first time I saw a G.p review listed on an artist's CV, I got nervous as all hell. I don't even always proofread, y'all. But that review was something like 800 words, not 80, and 800 words I'll stand by, not 80 words that don't exceed a single syllable. Since then I've been more careful about distinguishing between entries and reviews; I'm careful not to start a review with notes about which cereal I ate for breakfast or the bus ride on the way to the show, and yes, bloggers can be incredibly lazy about style, because many bloggers are bad writers, and even good writers who write blogs sometimes sacrifice style to get the posts up, to feed the beast. But this assumes that there's some sanctity to art criticism in the first place. I think there is: There are standards, duties, obligations, and so on that an art critic has to live up to; we are the few, the proud; etc. I just think that new media neither alleviates nor drastically reimagines these concerns.
But these are all ideas that the panel will address in detail in March. I figured it would be especially bloggy to invite all the internets to join the panel—just like when Buffy and Willow turn every potential Slayer into the real thing.* The discussion is "The Role of the Arts Writer: Critiquing Art Criticism"—consider it an open thread.
* A sci-fi/fantasy reference, per the terms of new media union rules
Posted by Kriston at February 22, 2007 4:50 PMI particularly like "new media" art criticism. More and more I'm starting to notice that I look for the "comments" button when I'm reading reviews on an online version of a print paper, or even my remote control when I'm watching the news. When someone writes something particularly stupid in the Post, you can't really call them on it, no matter how much they deserve it. The ability to instantly augment or criticise someone's criticism is a great thing. Instead of being told from on high "this is what this is, and what it means", the dialogue that happens on blogs is often valid and exciting. A "letter to the editor" in a newspaper means next to nothing- because the immediacy is lost.
I'm tired of the traditional critical system (though it has treated me well personally). It is necessarily driven more by its limitations than by the merits of the work being considered- or not considered. For example- there is plenty work more deserving of Art in America and the other big magazines' attention than what you see there. You never see this work because the galleries can't afford to advertise, and thus attract the writers. As is constantly bemoaned in the blogosphere, the Post is severely, reprehensibly limited in its coverage. The space limitation limits the criticism, and limits the art scene to an incalculable degree. Does Britney Spear's exposed gunch deserve more coverage (no pun intended) than the DC art scene? The market says that it does. No matter how fantastic your show or mine is, it will never be as interesting to the mythical "general reader" as a frazzled pop-star's goon-ya.
But in the blog world, things are less market driven. If you're interested, plenty of verbage is given to celebrity meltdowns and melodrama, but this doesn't keep people from discussing other things, as it does in traditional media. Plus, folks like myself get to chime in their dumb 2 cents worth whenever they feel like it. This more than offsets any drawbacks presented by reduced editorial oversight. When oversight is required, it is gleefully provided by the peanut gallery.
Posted by: amw at February 22, 2007 5:43 PMI completely agree with your comments the parameters that seem to surround traditional art criticisms columns. I read a review this morning in the New York Times on the 2007 Armory show that was so disappointing. The 'art' columns in newspapers are usually just a blow by blow of who was there, a bland description of the layout, and the general watery impression of audiences. They are so boring! No one gets personal, or gets a little risky in describing how they look at art. There is such nervousness around art talk- but then, I blame academics as much as newspaper quotas.
Keri
PS. Hi Kriston, I just discovered your blog, its wonderful!
But Blake Gopnik does think I'm stupid. And with good reason!
Seriously, I'll try to tamp down my impatience with all these types of discussions long enough to say that I like the first part of the panel's title as it places the emphasis on the broader term of arts writer. As I never tire of pointing out, a lot of what's involved in online/blog art writing isn't criticism, or not as usually conceived. It's partly that, but also partly shop talk, gossip, news, public introspection, a conversation. The people involved aren't necessarily only writers, whether freelance or with a publication, but art professionals, artists, informed viewers, etc. To the extent that it contributes to public opinion--the tyranny of on dit--it can be a powerful thing, so I suppose it's ok to wonder and worry about how it works. But at the same time, a discussion of an exhibition that begins by describing what the writer had for breakfast isn't done to violate any standards of criticism, it's just something written in a different mode. What we call art criticism is only one way of talking about art, and a recently developed and by no means inevitable one at that.
Done! Now I must go beat my head against the wall.
Posted by: JL at February 23, 2007 12:41 PMKeri!
I read about your show in SF—congratulations!
On the Armory, well, Paddy Johnson's take is more insightful and more cutting and just a great deal cleverer than Holland Cotter's. ("Art is big business." —or— "At a time when everyone is trying to be a little different, Ms. Kielar is even more different, without forcing the issue." Thanks, HC.)
Posted by: Kriston at February 23, 2007 5:36 PMHi Kriston,
I was thinking about something that ties in with JL's remarks.
Traditional artmags always do extensive surveys about their readership;they go to lengths to put together demographics for their readership - I'm sure you've been asked to fill out the odd survey - you know, Are you between the ages of 18-25, 25-20 etc. Do you make between 18,000 - 25,000, 25,000- 30,000 etc. Do you have a high school education, B.A., M.F.A., P.H.D. etc. I don't know about you, but whenever I am pressed to fill one of those things out I embellish the heck out of it. I sort of wonder how accurate an impression of their readership these publications can really have.
On the electronic circuit - everyone has stat meters that let them know what time of day people are visiting, what they read while they're at the site, how long they read, where they go afterward...this is not without it's brave new world implications but it has a surprisingly intimate upside in terms of being more like a living exchange. I don't (think) I know the person from Prince Albert Saskatchewan who visits simpleposie everyday but I try to have something to trade with that person since they continue to drop by to read what I write in Toronto.
You've probably thought about this already but that would be part of my two cents.
Posted by: J@simpleposie at February 26, 2007 12:47 PM