Things are pretty quiet around here culture-wise, given the lack of college students (and perhaps the long-awaited onset of winter weather). So perhaps I can be forgiven for my lack of posting. But I have been thinking about art-criticism in the abstract, raising some questions that ought to be of practical relevance to my own activity as a semi-serious art-critic and blogger. So I’d like to initiate a series of posts on the subject.
A while back, I had a brief exchange with Franklin of Artblog.net, who announced that he was quitting art-criticism, in large part because of its perceived incompatibility with being an artist. As he wrote, “They’re contradictory exercises, professionally and temperamentally.” In response to my request for clarification, he responded:
Petty hatreds and unjustifiable loves that are unbecoming in a critic are a necessary part of an artist’s inclinations. I’ll continue to criticize to the extent that it helps me think about art, but I am stepping out of the role of capital-C Critic, and the title’s implications of fair-mindedness and responsibility. I relinquish efforts to make my writing strive for either. As a critic, that wouldn’t be right. As an artist, it’s fine.
This seems like a reasonable position and it appears to be widespread conventional wisdom. Yet I had some reservations, and so I responded:
I think they’re unbecoming if you put them up front and in the center. Indeed, a Critic should strive to be open-minded and go beyond idiosyncratic likes and dislikes. But it also seems disingenuous to me to pretend that criticism is a wholly neutral, disinterested affair. The critic is a judge, but also somebody who takes genuine pleasure (or displeasure) in artworks, just like anybody else. So it seems like there should be a middle ground, a way of letting two voices speak.
I have little to add to this impromptu “theory” at the moment, but I would like to illustrate what I take to be the difference between an enthusiastic review and a cool-headed, dispassionate one. For the former category, I’ll submit for your attention this piece I wrote about Boston painter (and former teacher of mine) Gerry Bergstein. For the latter, here is a piece I wrote about recently deceased Ithaca painter John Hartell. Both are nominally “positive” reviews, with regards to most of the work, if not to certain curatorial decisions. Both contain level-headed analysis and interpretation. But I think something of my differing enthusiasms comes through in the writing.
As one of only a handful of local individuals writing criticism of the visual arts, I believe that it is my ethical responsibility to cover as wide a variety of subjects as I am competent to cover. (In my newspaper writing, not so much in my blogging.) And I believe that it is important to be fair and balanced in doing so. But to try and repress my “petty hatreds and unjustifiable loves” entirely suggests to me an alienated approach to arts, one foreign not just to most artists, but to most amateur enthusiasts. Actually, I am willing to repress the hatreds; the loves however should be allowed to bubble to the surface once in a while. At least that’s the idea.
This issue of objectivity will always arise, but in principle you can tackle it head-on by declaring you’re going to write to please yourself and (possibly) nobody else. I think last time you pointed out the conflict of this approach with your felt ethical obligation to do reviews far many local artists. That’s a respectable scruple. But I think you should experiment with a medium that leaves you much more freedom to focus on those “unjustifiable loves.” I think the idea, introduced by D. and discussed a bit on this post, of curating your own gallery of favorites could fulfill this purpose. You might want to just do it on your blog or on this one, and then if you like it you could migrate to a more organized gallery/museum format. Maybe just a dedicated blog so all relevant posts are together. Hopefully that setting and some favorite subjects would facilitate loosening up your writing and critical thinking. Go wild!
The online curating idea is a good one and something I’ll do when I have the inclination. But I think that I can also address my loves within the medium of writing, to a greater or lesser degree–depending on the genre and audience). That’s what I would like to focus on here. I’m sorry of this subject bores people or if I’ve been repeating myself. I realize this is may be a niche subject. But its what concerns me at the moment.
Arthur, I’m at my day gig and don’t have time right now to read the reviews you linked to. But I do have a thought about your post.
It seems to me that the perceived conflict of interest is the least of your worries if you’re trying to be both critic and artist. Sure, you can be upfront about your biases, and that takes care of maintaining your credibility as a critic.
But the big question for me would be “does the process of being a critic interfere with the process of being an artist?” I don’t mean just the time involved, which is a factor in itself, but the very way of thinking you need to exercise for each activity. Being an artist certainly requires critical thinking, but it’s of a different sort than is required for writing reviews. I don’t want to get into all the details right now, but there’s a real difference between looking at something to decide what is or isn’t working about it (or what you find useful in viewing it), and looking at something knowing your job is to come up with something to say about it.
I’m not saying a person can’t do both. But just like some artists who teach find it hard to break out of teacher-mode when they do their work, I imagine there might be a similar difficulty with criticism. If you find, when you’re trying to paint (or sculpt, whatever), that you can’t break out of critic-mode, then that’s a problem. In which case you’d probably have to decide which activity is most important to you and focus on that. But if you can do them both well, then great!
PS – I don’t find the subject to be boring or particularly niche. It’s about both art and perception. That’s why we’re here :)
Arthur,
I think I had a different idea about the curating concept than you have. I was thinking that indeed it would feature your writing. Naturally, to the extent possible, there would be images (or links to them) showing works or at least artists you discuss. But I really had in mind more a gallery of your writings on artworks you love.
David,
I’m not trying to be an artist. I haven’t made a piece of art in something like half a year. That’s why I don’t show or discuss my work here or on the thinking eye.
There is a gap between being a critic and being an artist. Franklin’s post actually deals with that very subject. My post does as well, albeit indirectly.
Steve,
you can tackle it head-on by declaring you’re going to write to please yourself and (possibly) nobody else.
If I was to write like this, why would I show it to anybody? When I write for a public, I write for a public, taking their interests into consideration.
Arthur, if you’re not trying to be an artist, then you’ve got no problem. Write the most opinionated reviews you can, and enjoy the process.
I’ll take a look at Franklins’ post later.
May I preface this a bit? I was likely wrong, at least in part, about the two pursuits being temperamentally contradictory. One of my regular commenters responded to my post by saying, “Open mindedness, fairness, responsiblity and the like are not really relevant to being a good critic. You need just three qualities: a good eye, honesty to that eye, and skill in writing clear prose.” This is a better characterization of the critical activity than the one I had formulated.
But there’s being a critic, and then there’s making a living as a critic. Opportunities do not abound. I had hopes at one point that Artblog.net could provide an income, but this idea, to put it positively, is ahead of its time.
I’m also trying to make a go of it as an artist. This idea is also ahead of its time, but less so than the one above. It ended up making sense for me in regards to my career, patience, energy level, time, and sanity to re-establish my identity as an artist who writes rather than a dual artist/critic. I doubt that the Artblog.net post that Arthur links to reflects that, but it was the best articulation I could manage at the time. It is likely drawing too much inference about the world at large from a personal existential problem. For that I apologize.
Franklin,
I hope I didn’t misrepresent your post or your beliefs more generally. I assumed people would read the posts I linked to, which is probably naive. But this more about my muddled ideas than your (less) muddled ones.
David,
There is still a problem, although it would be worse if I was in Franklin’s (old) shoes.
No misrepresentation, Arthur. My idea of petty hatreds and unjustifiable loves being unbecoming in a critic was just not the right way of putting it. You’re correct that you can’t be a neutral critic, and you shouldn’t aspire to become one. A good eye and honest, clear prose is all you have to watch out for.
A critic is nothing more than a vocal member of art’s audience. There’s no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Fairness and balance are vestigial appendages from the context journalism. All you can do is resolve to get the facts right and call them as you see them. I hope you’ll have the opportunity to review my work one day. It would be a pleasure.
If I was to write like this, why would I show it to anybody? When I write for a public, I write for a public, taking their interests into consideration.
Yes, in a sense that’s always true. But, as David says (“write the most opinionated reviews you can”), if you’re doing it on a blog rather than in the newspaper, and you’re pre-selecting artworks you really care about, you can be much more free to unleash all your biases and idiosyncracies. You can create your own audience as those who enjoy your honest eye and clear prose. Imagine them however you want. It’s certainly possible you won’t attract many readers, that’s the norm in the blogosphere. But the effort might help your writing and your self-education. Seems worth a try; if reputation is a concern, create a pseudonym on a new blog, and reveal yourself when you’re famous. Maybe you don’t want to make such a big deal of it, but I do believe that giving yourself permission to write and the audience be damned is at least a valuable exercise.
Commenting on this post required quite a bit more background reading than has been common for most posts here, but I read every word in every link, and no problem. A little more education in the subject of art criticism and the motives of art critics can do no serious artist any harm and should, I expect, do a great deal of good.
Along the way, and tangential to the topic I wondered, “Well, if I were to go about reviewing art, how would I go about it?”
Then I realized that was not a tangent at all. It got me thinking in another mode. More on that in a bit.
For the moment, let’s take up “open mindedness, fairness, and responsibility.” One of Franklin’s commenters proposed that these were “not really relevant” for an art critic.
Eh?
So closed mindedness, unfairness, and irresponsibility are OK?
When stated in the reverse, it’s an obviously ridiculous statement; therefore, it can’t mean that. So what does it mean?
Who knows? I’m just tossing out that obviously ill formed argument. Art criticism is a human activity, and there are social rules to all human activities that cannot be ignored if one wishes to be taken seriously, let alone read at all.
Certainly one needs more then only “good eye, honesty to that eye, and skill in writing clear prose.”
Knowledge of art, a sense of history, a connection with the character of one’s particular art scene, and a passion for art are definite requirements for anyone involved in the arts to even consider a critic worth paying attention to.
To that I would add social responsibility, for any one lacking that is pretty much useful only for the entertainment value of tarring, feathering, and whipping out of town.
But does anyone honestly expect total objectivity? Where DID that idea come from? Philosophers have been debating the definition of The Real since philosophers could talk. No one expects that. That’s unreal. We expect someone in a position of responsibility to try to recognize and communicate their own biases so we can decide for ourselves just how those biases affect their opinions and expressions.
Now I get back to how I’d go about reviewing art were I reviewing art.
I am biased. I am biased in that I think artists should be more concerned about ordinary people and less concerned about the art world, and so when I see work that is gratuitously obscure, I am fundamentally unimpressed. When I see art that has managed to reconcile subtle, difficult, dangerous, unpopular, daring or contemporary messages with the only thing that ordinary people universally respect — excellence of craft, I’m delighted. It’s not easy to do that. It takes some real thought, sweat, and practice to achieve.
I would only be unfair if I didn’t say so. So I’m biased against schlock, no matter how well executed and I’m biased against poorly executed work no matter how interesting the message.
What is irrelevant is the fact that I’m also an artist. I love art. I have a stake in this world. I think art is the most important of all human activities. It is the supreme measure of our culture, and it is what future generations will remember about us more than anything. Look around you. Look at the building you live in. Look at your clothes. Turn on the TV or stick a DVD in the player. Listen to a CD. Have a look at those gleaming beauties zipping down the freeway. Artists make the present worth living in, and artists make the future.
People, like art critics, who are in positions of responsibility, need to understand that and not underestimate their potential impact.
I think you’re right on target, Arthur.
I assumed people would read the posts I linked to, which is probably naive.
Arthur, it’s not naive, but perhaps expecting too much. In my case, it all depends on how much time I have when I’m reading a blog. I often do so when I’m at work, between tasks, or when I get home at night after a long day of day-job and studio work. Occasionally I have a little extra time to follow links, but often I’m just checking in to see what’s being discussed on A&P.
I usually look at links as extra things to explore, like a bibliography, and hope that the blog entry itself will contain everything I need to get the point of what’s being said, and to engage in a short discussion about it.
That said, I do hope to check out Franklin’s post, as it sounds interesting. But it will probably be manana.
Arthur,
We seem to have agreed earlier that art criticism is an art form in itself. I don’t expect art criticism to be objective. The concept of “objective art criticism” is paradoxical to me, as much as the idea of “objective art.” Yes, there could be objective review of the criticism of others, for example, and that might be lumped together with art criticism accidentally.
Art is created by an artist, who is it’s first critic, and an interactive one. “Finished” art is really only “completed” in the mind of the observer. Art criticism (in some ways like the art of framing a picture) will influence how we “complete” the art in our minds.
In summary, I don’t think an art critic is an art reporter, any more than a political commentator is a news reporter. I don’t see why you should worry about expressing your feelings about art; it seems to me that is your job. The only questions are, does being a critic really inhibit being a “normal” artist? If so, why do you choose one or the other art form?
Maybe this is the place to mention an artist/critic blog I just came across via Edward Winkelman. Deborah Fisher does sculpture which I’ve only glanced at so far because her writing is so fascinating. It’s thoughtful and thought-generating stuff in a very personal, down-to-earth voice.
Arthur.
I entirely concur with Steve that the curatorial possibility would indeed “feature your writing.”
Related: I really admire Alan Bamberger’s commentaries:
http://www.artbusiness.com/openings2006.html
And here is a question: does it make sense to review, in one’s local paper, work experienced on the Internet? Certainly, for me, many of the works I admire the most have not been directly experienced. It seems like an interesting opportunity.
Karl and Rex,
“Objective” was the wrong word to use. What I meant was judging a work of art in a way that reflects widespread (not universal, not scientifically objective) standards of value as opposed to the idiosyncracies of individual taste. “Social responsibility” is a better term. This was the distinction I believed Franklin was making. Apparently he no longer believes in it now, if he ever did. But the distinction does make some sense to me. That’s what I wanted to discuss here.
Steve,
Obviously, I wanted to talk about art criticism, a particular genre (however vaguely defined). So I guess I’m not sure why you keep saying “do something else”. I have done other kinds of artwriting, if not lately. You can find them if you dig around on my blog. In the future I will post them here.
D.,
And here is a question: does it make sense to review, in one’s local paper, work experienced on the Internet?
It would be highly unorthodox to say the least. Generally local papers cover local art shows. This is true of big city papers but all the more so of small town ones. And covering work seen only on the Internet is usually a no-no. But I would be interested in seeing you expand on the idea.
No, there is some kind of responsibility to get out in front of a lot of art as a critic – you might call it professional responsibility. You’re an art critic, so if something is presented as art in a serious context, or people are talking about it, or other writers have covered it, you owe it to your role as a critic to put yourself in front of it even if you’re probably not going to like it much. As a critic, it’s part of the job. As an artist, doing that kind of thing is a needless drain.
What I meant was judging a work of art in a way that reflects widespread (not universal, not scientifically objective) standards of value as opposed to the idiosyncracies of individual taste.
Replace “reflects” with with addresses or acknowledges and I think you come close to what Franklin says. Serving a community as opposed to serving yourself and your friends. I’m not trying to defend this distinction at all costs.
As a critic, it’s part of the job. As an artist, doing that kind of thing is a needless drain.
It can be a drain whether you’re an artist or not. So how can you make it less of a drain? My proposal (which has been ignored) was to import some of the artist-enthusiast’s selfishness without giving in to it entirely.
…you owe it to your role as a critic to put yourself in front of it even if you’re probably not going to like it much. As a critic, it’s part of the job. As an artist, doing that kind of thing is a needless drain.
Good point, Franklin, and why I could never, myself, be much of an art critic. From the top of the food chain at the big city museum shows to the bottom feeders out of the backs of pick up trucks, Art in America is in pretty sad shape. I would find myself getting depressed.
How I long for a groundswell of popular sensibility like occurred in Italy, the Netherlands, or Athens once upon some times.
From the top of the food chain at the big city museum shows to the bottom feeders out of the backs of pick up trucks, Art in America is in pretty sad shape. I would find myself getting depressed.
Rex, I sort of agree with you and I sort of don’t. Sure there’s a lot of disposable work out there, but there are also good things. Discovering the gems is what makes it worth the trouble of looking. And the bad art (I know this is entirely subjective) gives us a context within which to appreciate the good stuff.
The art we remember from the past is the work that has survived the test of time (I know, time keeps changing the test questions). I assume that, looking back, there will be a small amount of art from our time that will be remembered, and the rest, like much from other periods, will be forgotten.
Arthur,
My decision to retreat from steady Criticism back to Making/Curating resulted from my asking myself: why re-represent work that I am largely indifferent to when I can represent myself and the others that thrill me?
There is a lot of great work being made.
Are you familiar with Gillian Wearing? She is often easily dismissed as a YBA. I recently saw a video piece: she is telling personal secrets while wearing a mask she made of her own face. You can only see her eyes. So simple and beautiful.
David,
I don’t agree, really, that bad art provides context by which to appreciate good art.
It is the universe which provides context; furthermore, it is good art that helps us appreciate great art. One needs data of comparable magnitude.
And really, I said what I said because I DO get depressed when I go look at large quantities of current art. I’m like “God damn! Am I living in the Land of the Dead? The Blind? What the hell has happened to skill and taste? Where’s the courage gone?”
But I’m an anachronism, David. I do not belong to this era. At times, I would welcome an apocolypse. It looks to me like modern culture is a canvas that needs to be tossed. A blank sheet is just the thing.
So there’s another bias.
And Arthur,
I heard you. I said I thought you were right on target.
Okay, Arthur, I did go read your exchange with Franklin, which was interesting (though I did have to scroll through a bunch of unrelated talk about programming languages). Here’s something you said in your conversation that I want to ask you about:
I would say that yes, there are things I really hate and that yes, I would call these things bad art. And there are things that I find fascinating and would call good art without hesitation. But there are also things in the middle. It may hard to find something specific to object to, but the artwork just doesn’t inspire another look.
Do you feel, in your role as critic, that it’s your obligation to write about those things in the middle? Why would anybody want to read about them?
Arthur,
“I assumed people would read the posts I linked to, which is probably naive.”
I just finished reading all the links, and like David, have limited time to do so, even though I find it worthwhile when I do. So I feel out of the conversation loop here as I am responding to your post in a n initial way whereas others have devloped a dialogue that goes beyond your initial idea. Oh well, I will go ahead and insert my thoughts. Part of my problem is getting sucked in to blogs and losing track of time. I am wanting to limit my blogging in favor of studio time and other things.
Having said that, I love reading your writing and reviews. What I like about your writing is the more objective descriptions of the art – what they look like (in a very detailed way – I can really see them), the major ideas – and then your opinions. It seems to me that you meet your own ethical requirements as a critic. I especially like reading your opinions about some of the curatorial decisions – what pieces were chosen, whether they fit in with the show, are worthy of a retrospective, etc. It would be interesting to me to know how much input the artist had in the hanging of the show and how much was the gallery’s doing. I think each has their different takes on the selection process.
As far as being a critic being a drain – of course it would be. Anything you put your time, thought and attention to can be a drain. We are all incredibly busy, esp since the art doesn’t always pay the bills! But I could see how being a critic and being an artist could really feed eachother. That’s my litmus test for teaching. At times it drains me at the expense of the art. At times making art drains me at the expense of teaching. And at times, in those beautiful times, they have a wonderful symbiotic existence. When something a students asks sparks a question for my work. When something I painted shows me a way to explain a color concept to my students. That’s great stuff!
Wihtout being very familiar with Franklin, I would say the balance has gotten out of whack for him. My bet is that he will return to being a critic after he devotes the attention to his art he feels is lacking right now. My sense form his adamancy about the inability for the two to coexist is that it is about where he is in his artistic process. SOemtimes there is no room for anything else. Other things have to slide. Maybe he will come back to the writing, maybe not. I am always thinking in five year trajectories (a holdover form learning about communist 5 year plans in high school). Maybe five years steeped in art, getting his career going and he will hunger for the writing again. I am just taking wild guesses and hopefully not being too presumptious. Pleas take it with a grain of salt, Franklin!
I also think there is something to be said about existing in a verbal world versus a world without words and traveling between the two. Franklin’s paintings seem particularly quiet, wordless. As one who has balanced creative writing with painting before, sometimes I saw no images and could only write. And at other times the words made no sense and I could only make images. It can feel like a cross-cultural exchange!
Really interesting discussion – not just a niche!
D.
I LOVE Gillian Wearing! I saw a similar video piece in Chicago. I also love her photos. What’s a YBA?
I do not belong to this era. At times, I would welcome an apocalypse.
Rex, with a platform like that you could be president :)
I’m not suggesting that you go out and look at a lot of work that you find depressing. Not good for the artistic spirit. I don’t like that much of what I see out there in the galleries and museums either. And there are periods of time when I ignore the artworld entirely and just do my work. But when I do look I find there are gems to be discovered, and for me, those make it worth seeing a bunch of mediocre art.
Arthur,
I don’t see where I suggested you “do something else” (your comment #17), but I did think you were talking about writing art criticism, and I was just suggesting a possible way to do that on your own terms. Apparently you’re discussing writing about art criticism. Anyway, I guess the concept is not too appealing to you, which is fine, but I’d be interested in reading anyone else who takes it up.
Someone else beat me to that one.
Leslie.
YBA = Young British Artists.
Did you see the Tuttle show at MCA Chicago? Though I often appreciate the simplicity of his work in the context of others, by himself and in such a quantity, his work felt increasingly insignificant.
D,
I missed the Tuttle show regretably. Have only seen a couple in person and just love them, but I can imagine a whole show being too, well, subtle. They are so quiet, his pieces, and there is no way to experience them but in person. That’s why I am truly sorry I missed the show.
Steve,
As far as I understand it, criticism is about making value judgments, saying some things are good and others not so good. It is difficult to see how this goal could be combined with your idea of creating “a gallery of your writings on artworks you love”. Its not that this is a bad idea, its just that it doesn’t seem particularly relevant to my post. Its as if you were to post a photograph and I were to keep asking when you were going to show us a painting.
David,
Do you feel, in your role as critic, that it’s your obligation to write about those things in the middle? Why would anybody want to read about them?
Well for one thing, because (as I just said above) criticism needs to deal with better and worse. And just because I consider them middling doesn’t mean that the reader is likely to agree. The only kind of art that I feel completely safe in ignoring is work lacking in any apparent serious intent.
Arthur,
I think Steve was following-up on my earlier inquiry as to whether you had considered curatorial work and the position of writing as an advocate. My curatorial experiences have been entirely positive because, for me, the art matters. This does not mean that Reviewing does not matter, it is just that when I did it, I felt that I was mostly just meddling in the middle.
Good luck.
just because I consider them middling doesn’t mean that the reader is likely to agree.
Is reader agreement important?
I’m not asking this to be contentious, but really want to know what is being expected of you. Is your role to go out and look at everything, and give your readers an evaluation of it? Or you do you have the option to just write about things that are of interest to you? Does the paper you write for have an expectation that you should review everything that has apparent serious intent?
Arthur,
I guess I read your post as indicating dissatisfaction with some of the constraints you feel as a critic, so I was suggesting a way to avoid those constraints for some of your writing, even if you also still want to work under them in other settings. Maybe the idea of a gallery of writing about artworks you love was not the right one; what it should be is a gallery of writing about things you really feel moved to write about, whether single artworks or arbitrary collections. Make all the value judgements you want, both regarding the subject work and anything else you want to bring into consideration. Another way of putting it: imagine a dream piece of criticism you’d like to be asked for, and then do it for yourself as an entry in your “gallery.” But perhaps I’m still not getting it and this just won’t fit with your conception of what you want to do.
David,
What is expected of me is vague. I have considerable leeway to choose what I want to cover The arts editor makes some suggestions, but this is almost always negotiable. But there are a limited number of art venues in town and I expected to get around. For example, I can’t review two shows in a row at the same venue.
I actually think all of this may be healthy. It can be a drain, but there is also the possibility of being forced to look at things that I would otherwise ignore, things that can turn out to be interesting.
Steve,
I suppose I was indicating dissatisfaction. But my question wasn’t how do I dump the constraints; the question was how do I work more happily within the constraints, within criticism. As I said, I have done writing which I wouldn’t consider criticism. Here is an example.
Arthur,
In reading your two reviews, it seems to me that you have amply proven that you can work in both those “middle” modes. Whatever argument you are having with yourself (or others) about the challenges of reviewing and writing art criticism are not apparent in what you’ve linked us to. Your “dispassionate” review starts out cooly, but quickly engages the art and its surrounds and, as Leslie says, describes with a throughness that is proof of a careful eye.
And your enthusiastic review also shows dispassion about the ways the works reviewed speak (or fail to speak) to one another.
I found the reviews fascinating — and your comments a bit puzzling, mostly because they sounded far more uneasy than what you are doing so well warrants.
Anyway, thanks for introducing me to two new artists. And I liked the “non-criticism,” too, although it isn’t as far removed from critical writing as I thought it would be before I read it. You relied more heavily on the interviewee’s word (a substitute for the visuals in the criticism?) and on your own breadth of thinking to flesh out his ideas, but basically you were still commenting on his art.
Can you define more concretely the constraints you feel? Is the James Siena lecture the direction you would like to push in — more philosophical, perhaps? Or is it something else? Or have we beat this topic to its final flailing demise?
June,
I think its time to put this thread to sleep. The issues, of course, will come back. But thank you for commenting and I’m glad you like the reviews. Like Franklin (comment 8 above),I was “likely drawing too much inference about the world at large from a personal existential problem”.