01/28/2008: "The Bankruptcy of Criticism"

It is more or less consensual, even among artists themselves, that art criticism lost relevance and power. This happens not only in Brazil: in the United States, England and France it has been the subject matter of heated debates. It is unimaginable the appearance today of a Clement Greenberg (photo) or a Harold Rosenberg, for example, who both exerted a decisive influence in the American Arts in the 50s, 60s and 70s, or, in Brazil, a Mario Pedrosa, who helped building our critical discourse on Modernism. (Nevertheless, Greenberg still is the name which is immediately associated to the figure of the art critic, since contemporary production did not generate any relevant critics - Arthur Danto is too committed with the thesis of the "end of art" to assume that role).

Today, the remaining critics admit that their role is no longer that of judges but that of spectators. And who tok the role of judge? The curator. Critics exchanged their past active mediation role for the passive role of neutral commentators, on the periphery of the art system. With few exceptions, this is manifested both in the press and in the academic production - here, it is aggravated by the language obscurantism, which gives a veneer of sophistication and inaccessibility to the lack of rigour and the inability to express oneself clearly.

The real criticism bothers: imagine if a critic today had the power to put down the frauds of Damien Hirst: what would marchands and collectors do with works that they led to stratospheric prices? The extent to which art became a speculative investment and real money began to flow leads to a situation in which art can be no more that influenced by opinions of experts who are not committed themselves to market, hence the emptying of their strategic role.

The very interested in art as speculation stole for themselves the role of identifying - or simply designating - new trends, new names, new works. In other words, the person who sells the tickets to the exhibitions is the same that ensures their quality and value, and it has obvious implications. Moreover, the the art system agents spend much of their time travelling (there are more than 200 biennials in the world nowadays, for instance), which very few critics are able to do - and it becomes an excuse for those agents to steal the critic's role. And those who dare to criticize it are disqualified as disinformed people, who should be traveling more to update themselves etc.

We have arrived at a point in which, in the United States, such agents of the system regularly visit the shows of art schools, to elect the geniuses of the future even before they graduate. In this context, one of the cornerstones of critic activity - the discovery of new artists and the support to the consolidation of their careers - has been eliminated. That is, the critic has no more power to create or to destroy a reputation - and it's great for the market standpoint, of course.

Criticism persists only as a staging: the vacuum of meanings of the critical texts reflects the lack of importance of the critics themselves. Basically, the activity survives only with the task of intellectual legitimation for production networks whuich are determined by the market: the same way that a curriculum of exhibitions abroad, a body of laudatory texts helps to confer respectability to the new stars among museums, collectors and the general public.

Someone needs to write these texts, of course. Since appearing in international catalogues signing articles is good for the ego, lots of people are available to write them, whether journalists, whether History of Art teachers, two professional categories, as we know, poorly paid (at least in Brazil). The attraction of the art's social circuit, with its own parties, rituals and ceremonies, also has its weight, of course. For the critic, as for the artist, it is more important today the network of relationships and the complicity with the rules of the market game than the technical knowledge of the old aesthetic rules of the artistic activity itself. Both reflect as a mirror the radical commercialisation of the artistic sphere.

Moreover, we lost the understanding of criticism as a literary genre. In the past it was expected that a critic knew how to write well, that he had a style , that he was able to persuade the reader to believe in his interpretation of the examined work - and make the reader reflect on what he saw. It is not accidental that so many critics have been also writers, since Baudelaire. Today the critic is not concerned with achieving a large audience, or even with writing for the reader: he writes for their peers and for other agents of the art system - or the academic system, in the case of university texts, which, in Brazil, never were famous by its clarity.

In America, the "conservative" critic (in Brazil, "conservative" is a label always applied with in a pejorative manner, and not only in arts; employing it, a young artist who does not know anything of life is welcome to ignore all that has to say a critic like Robert Hughes, for example, or Ferreira Gullar - one and other, as we know, reactionaries and conservatives) Roger Kimball has formulated it in the following way: the critics went to bed with the post-modern ideology. Only then it is understandable that they legitimate works as different as a shark cut in half, by Damien Hirst, and the sculptures of chocolate by Janine Antoni, to cite just two examples.

Therefore, the critic needs to adopt criteria as heterogeneous as the works of contemporary art themselves - or to copy the criteria of press-releases given by the galleries and museums. This also helps to understand why critics do not have anymore an assertive attitude, do not declare whether they like or not a work, whether it is good or bad. Since the 80s, "decaffeinated", critics doubt their own authority - another typically post-modern attitude - and the very concept of "quality" loses its legitimacy, . Thus the critic has become merely a vehicle for ideas of the artist himself on his own work. Judgements of value would strengthen old symbolic hierarchies of power, of course.

Finally, until the end of Modernism, art was going somewhere; in that context Clement Greenberg could, rightly or not, interpret modern art as a historical process whose internal logic ended in Abstract Expressionism - and consistently, to question the "artisticity" of the ready-mades of Marcel Duchamp or the parodies of Pop Art. After the post-modern decree of the deaht of Histroy and its great narratives, art has lost that ambition and began to move in an erratic way, following the flows of the market. That's why any consistent interpretation of contemporary art became very difficult. In which values can be based the trial of a cube of chocolate or a ping-pong table covered with empty egg shells?

Replies: 24 Comments

on Friday, February 15th, jose said

Very interesting Walt.

on Thursday, February 14th, walt said

Interesting article in Flak Magazine…

www.flakmag.com/opinion/kinkade2.html

on Wednesday, February 13th, walt said

Thank you Sheilendra. Yes, there was once a kind of balance of power between the market and critics. This has disapeared as more and more critics have simply become what I've called 'arts writers' who seem to rubber stamp more often than critic.

on Wednesday, February 13th, shailendra tiwari said

HI,
The critics contribution is to explore the hidden dimensions of the work of Art. It helps others to trigger the creative juice . It is the social and cultural meileieu which depending on TIME decides the importence of crtics over commerce.

Shailendra Tiwari
Artist
BHOPAL

on Wednesday, February 13th, shailendra tiwari said

on Monday, February 4th, walt said

Mark, I have noticed that there are blogs which deal in certain political or religious points of view and even some art discourse that gets into a kind of vitriol that is not much more intelligent or mature than "is not." "Is so" ending in "well my dad can beat up your dad"...it can get really sleazy and brainless.

As the King James version of the book of proverbs once used to read "one who chastizes a fool is like one who pisseth in the wind." You won't find that wording any longer unless you have a fairly old version. Someone has since rewritten it so as to be more acceptible to the tender ears of modern church goers. Theologians say God never changes, but apparantly he does allow himself to be periodically edited for better sound bites. Or is it that even God feels the need for political correctness? Or maybe it's just that we're watering everything down today?

DISCLAIMER: The above statement was meant to be ironic. I'm too skeptical to be a religious conservative... just in case someone was forming that thought.

on Sunday, February 3rd, Mark said

A bit of subject.

Walt, I too look at other blogs mostly art and polotics. I too am suprised at the few responses. Perhaps many feel that thier opinion will make little difference, perhaps they are right. I feel as the old saying goes, 'Better to light a single candle then curse the darkness.' So I express my opinion, if someone wishes to listen great, even if they disagree.

on Saturday, February 2nd, walt said

Mark, you may be right in that the standard art critic may well have mutated into something else, or several somethings...perhaps even taken over by bloggers in general. Maybe we are actually on the road developing that idea right here as we speak. By the discussion of these things we are unwrapping the conundrum so to speak from which we can see either a need that needs filling or a problem that needs solving. And isn't that the way the market works?

I think the blog-o-sphere presents oppurtunities for many kinds of dialog. And the roll of critic is most likely one of them. With one clear distinction in contrast to the old school version...immediate feedback! It's that feedback that is quite different. Most of it is just an attempt to waterdown or nullify the opinion. But even so the fact that folks, even new folks have joined in on this one suggest that more are listening than is usually obvious. I peruse other blog sites both art oriented, political and other topics and am often surprized at even the ones on major media sites that there just aren't as many responses as I might expect. As many as we often get here to be honest. And of course those media giants use them to gauge the interest in this or that kind of article. I'm not sure we're so sophisticated here at aa just yet. Although there have been responses based on suggestions that came through the blogs...like the ability to upload video to our sites for instance.

So here we are in the middle of the whole enchilada after all. And maybe instead of the hot peppers critics usually included in their meals perhaps we'll have more and various kinds of salsa and meat on the new variation.

on Saturday, February 2nd, Mark said

Walt,
I can speak only for me but I am not down on critics I just think there time has passed, for the most part. Nor am I saying we should not have any, trouble is they may spark dialog but only among a few, as most even here at AA do not participate. So when you have a few you only get the ideas of a few, not really enough for a national or world wide discussion. Having said that nothing wrong with trying.

Yes discusion is good and we try to do it here, not always sucessfully but it is hard to know what one speaks of when you can not see each others expression. Discourse too is a good thing but just because there are critics out there does mean there will be discourse for your work. Yes I know that sounds a lot like it is all be about me, but if you want your 'work noticed' as you say, it has to be all about me to a great degree. If those comic book students do not think they will be great then they never will, you have to believe to try or why else try. One has to be relistic to at some point, but that is learned from experiance. Most of us want greatness in some form even if it is just making a living from what we do, but if we have no drive that will never happen, not even a chance.

So let critics do thier thing, tho as you say there few around, maybe because it is time to go? Maybe? Who knows? I have only a humble opinion and do not expect my opinions as to be taken as the difinitive answer as do some who post here. There are just to many grays to be absolutley sure of anything.

on Saturday, February 2nd, Brad Michael Moore said

And Walt said, "...fact is we often do what we do with no conscious idea of why or what it says."
I thought that deserved repeating...

What I tell people these days about my work is this:

"Like so many others, I start out with an idea, and some tools - then I proceed in my efforts until I have in hand - a finished portrayal, created from my visions, my dreams, and the spectral aspects of my reality (including my education and all the judgments other people have had about me)... I have no other idea of what more could be anticipated of an artist..." How do you critique that? I am no more in your mind than you are in mine. Artistic success cannot even be gauged by collections, and sales. Art is an arbitrary and subjective exercise in the personal selection that freethinking creatives do in ways they are often powerless to stop. We manifest - therefore we are. In fact - only ten years ago it was written, "Now everyone thinks they're a photographer - with the invent of the all auto digital LDC viewer cameras. Today, with so many affording the ability the make their, "Art," with kitchen top color home printers - truly, everyone across the world can really think they are artists. Actually, we have just become components of a me-society that transverses with our new outsourcing worldwide economy. Children in Africa are as likely today, to be given a personal laptop computer, with satellite linking, than a meal ticket that will last them through next week. While they hunger - they too can now be starving world artists - how will we critique that?

I think, in the end, Walt, Mark, and Luciano, all have good points. Fact is - these days, I don't care what you call me, or what I call my art - just as long as I can continue to live, make the stuff, and survived with art as a main component of my life... They can put on my gravestone, "He lived 80 years thinking he was an artist, and no one was ever able to convince him he otherwise - but, just the fact "Artist," is on his gravestone - that will take a lot of weather to dispel, centuries...
---
Fact is – humans can all be artists doing Mona Lisa’s and Dante’s Infernos. More power to us all… By the way – have you heard the latest – someone out there is trying to corner the market on personal home nuclear power quads – for the 24/7/365 Juicearoo–1 million year light source so you never get interrupted again while do your art – or what ever you want to call it today...

on Friday, February 1st, walt said

Mark,

There seems to me to be two reasons to have critics. One is to actually give advice and the other is to organize and contrast ideas inherent in any give time period of art. Right or wrong having a few classifications begins debate. And as much as some poo poo debate it has its reasons for being.

Artists tend to do one of two things when discussing each others art...either their criticism is largely lauditory, i.e. "I really like your work." with no real explanation as to why it is likeable or with shallow explanation.

Or they are intimidated by anothers work and tend to put it down for the sake of upping their own. And when they do give something beyond that shallow experience it tends to be so connected to the artist/critics own solutions as an art maker as to be oftentimes useless or worse yet oppressive to the other. It is just as rare to find a real critique from another artist as it is from a critic. Teacher critiques are often ignored once a student is at a certain level because they can sense this...they are familiar with the biases every teacher brings to the table.

The other reason, the dialog, can be frustrating when it is another artist or artists for some of the same reasons above. Rare to find a colleague who doesn't feel like if asked they have the upper hand and want to mold you into their likeness rather than actually see something of unique value in another's work. To find a whole group of other artists who can truly be unbiased is a unique experience. Most of the artist cooperatives tend to go down hill after a brief moment of success because of this and the fact that after a while they begin to see adding new artists simply because of the money they bring to the table. They lose their selectivity, their qualitative judgement.

Many art schools and university programs are going the same route, looking for quantity rather than quality, watering down programs to make every possible art student happy (the anything is art syndrome) to the end that nobody gets a good education at any level. It just becomes a mutual back patting society, feel good responses given to make a student stay in school and pay their tuition. We are really afraid of a tough minded approach to discussin art in this society I think.

But if one is so lucky (and usually for only a short shelf life) one finds a good group to disuss ideas it is hard these days to find such a group able to organize their thoughts enough to get to any significant level of discussion. You can't have a significant discussion if everyone waves off every standard and every criticism.

I was in a group for a short while that did ok for a while. It eventually just fell apart because everyone just kept going their own individual ways with no real heart to get to something higher.

Ultimately a critic should do more than just criticise one artist at a time. They should have the big picture in mind. I'll be honest, I don't think this time diverse period is any harder than any other in recent history, say the last two hundred years, to get the big picture, find a few common threads holding it together and begin to form some discourse on what's going on and how art relates to the world at large.

Exactly why are we so down on critics anyway? How many of us on this site for instance have had a serious critic ever look at our work let alone have something derogatory to say about it? I mean in print not just a colleague. A few of us perhaps. Most of us have been reviewed but that isn't the same thing. A reviewer is simply an arts writer more tied to the market than anything aesthetic or social.

Mark, I agree with you on one point. There are more artists out there than ever before. It seems to me from the few times I tried to have serious discussions with a few who begged for a critique on the forum here at aa that upon offering a critique, instead of dialogue, I constantly found the artist defending his/her work with an attitude that told me they didn't want a real critique but praise and confirmation. It is the same as it is with art students in school. They just want an "A" so they can graduate to the big leagues. Only its like in the comic 'Art School Confidential' where the teacher says to a class "There maybe one student in this class who has any real chance of becoming famous and the thought baloons above every students' head says "That'll be me." I'm not speaking of anyone specific here. But I stopped giving critiques online sometime back because it just wasn't condusive to a satisfying discussion. Wasn't worth my effort.

Someone from outside the circle who has the background and can think and write something that gets to the heart of things can revitalize and uplift whole segments of the artist population. The right citic can stimulate the entire artistic population binding groups of artists together either in agreement or disagreement with the critics conclusions, stirring the pot so to speak.

But as long as artists sit around fending off any real discourse on their work how are they even going to get their work noticed?

We should as artists want discourse from all quarters; use a critics ideas to understand potentially how what we do is actually percieved as opposed to how we think it ought to be percieved; allow for someone elses opinion on where we fit into the mix even if we feel there is more there than meets the eye; and toughen up to those negative comments that might be leveled against our work which sometimes are the key to understanding what we are really doing...fact is we often do what we do with no conscious idea of why or what it says.

on Thursday, January 31st, Mark said

In a world where anyone can call themselves an artist, where anything goes, and where there are more 'artists' then ever in the history of the world, where would a critic even start?

Education, knowledge of art history, contemporary art, and even how art is created, certainly would give a critic an educated opinion, but it is still just an opinion, the critics. One thing left out that a good critic would need is an open mind and without that even all the above does not guarantee that.

Even if one could find a critic with all the best qualities, would they really, in this day and age, make the kind of difference they may have once made? I don't think so. Thier times has passed. In many ways our time has passed as well, at least in the way that things used to be. Times change and with it so does what we do, a fact of life and it is our job, not a critics, to find ways to be sure that art does not get lost in the shuffle. That it still has an effect.

I know how we can give critics a job and get national exposure for them and us. See, we have a TV show called 'American Artist.' We show them our work and they tell us how 'The work is good but your fat and what is it with the hair? Your out of here!' Now wouldn't that be a horror. LOL

on Thursday, January 31st, Ed T. said

Art critics of today or yesterday never influence my opinion of art. Those who can't paint, criticise.

on Wednesday, January 30th, BradMM said

Walt, Excellent points. I know Ohio must have a deep history in artist representation that branches out from or towards Columbus. Writers who are steeped in local and regional history should also learn the practice of collaboration. You get more published credits and an even greater knowledge base that your first strength. If I were knowledgeable of the local art scene of an area like North Texas - there are many museum folks who know the art history based on their jobs as curators and such. Why not collaborate? Many visual artists who wish to publish their art often find poets, essayists, or writers of other natures to fill the spaces between their art. The more we practice collaboration - the less we polish our egos and the better off everyone else is. Plus something is gained through collaboration where nothing existed before. I guess this argument transcends just the criticism of art and also is pointed towards the enhancement of our mediums. I hope the Me Generation is over and the We Generation takes it's stead. Who knows what all we have left to accomplish?

on Tuesday, January 29th, walt said

Oh yeah. I forgot one other thing a critic must be good at. Criticism. They should be able to hear it when it is on the mark at which point it begins a dialog. And they must be able to shrug it off when it is simply hurt feelings by the artist or the public... or art world heavies for that matter.

It is often a thankless job and should be paid well.

on Tuesday, January 29th, walt said

Brad, I like your point about local critics. Most of our local critics are more educated on the national and international level and tend to discuss local work, some of it quite groundbreaking at times, in terms of the world rather than the locale.

At a time when world art is in flux now might be the time for local critics to deal on a more local level where they can say something really concrete rather than the abstractions that are so often thrown around. On the local level though they might want to actually know something, as you mentioned, of the local art history. Most of the local writers I know have little knowledge of what went on before they moved to Columbus to go to Ohio State four years ago. There are exceptions as always. As well it wouldn't hurt them to get to know the artists well enough to understand the language that they are using which often times does not include some of the dodgy terms that abound these days. Many of these terms are designed more to slough off criticism than to engage it.

I think a good critic can nail a false issue, help define a truth, expose an artist who is posing, and uplift an artist that is honest. When good critics reveal the shallowness of a so called important exhibition, not just panning it or mocking it but truly showing its pretentions and falacies and sometimes its hypocricies, he/she is doing us all a favor. But of late they have all gotten on the bandwagon to push the art that is already touted by the galleries and museums because those artists are selling. And I'm not talking about local artists with loyal followings but artists who are operating at the national level who, are not particularly all that good at what they do. Meanwhile we at the local level know of other artists working in similar viens sometimes at a higher artistic level. Whatever happened to studio visits? One of the local critics used to show up at the critiques a group of us used to organize. She walked away with her finger on what was going on in Columbus. But she left cause the local paper championed a critic with good taste who never knew quite what to say if the art didn't fit into her little categories she learned in school.

Critics can have a huge impact on things. But they have to do two things first...come down to earth and look for stand out quality rather than simply looking for what stands out like a sore thumb. A critic must be able to see past a bad frame here or there. Go into an alternative gallery instead of the blue chip spaces from time to time. Then they must have something to say instead of the common, terminally hip driveling rhetoric we've been hearing for the last few years. It is the crux of the problem all over the arts. Kinda like the old Charley the Tuna commercials...we don't want art with good taste. We want art that tastes good...something with nutrition that also fills us with something besides empty calories.

Alright...I've ranted on long enough.

on Tuesday, January 29th, Ellen said

Art reflects society and the watch-word today seems to be anything goes. I believe that the rules are constantly changing: minute by minute not age (ie realism, romanticism, etc.) by age. That is going on the assumption, a weak one at best today, that there are rules at all. Then, how can a critic judge what is obsolete before it is even printed on the page. If a show is reviewed and the review is negative, but the art captures the public's fancy via the instant media available, the critic looks like a nay sayer at best or a fool when the review appears. Catch 22. A very thought provoking blog. I also think that the 60's promoted the concept that EVERYONE can do anything with equal ability or at the very least have the opportunity to try to do so. How can a critic argue with opportunity or the notion that artists should be given an opportunity to express themselves? In past centuries it was clearer: either you could do it or not according to the critics. Of course this led to alternative movements ie Impressionism, Dada, etc. There are currently so many art shows in NYC that they either go uncovered by press or in some cases, critics are afraid to say "unkind" things about art they cannot define: changing rules. Hirst is like a figment of our spinning world. Thanks for a great blog, Luciano.

on Tuesday, January 29th, jose said

Luciano, quanta razão você tem. An interesting blog and series of comments providing insights into a topic I have no recollection of us ever going into. I confess to a certain apprehension towards the critic as we know him today - the one you mention writes for his peers - though I have to admit, as Walt points out, that we should look into what value the critic's contribution may have towards the whole process - qual a sua mais-valia? I also have to confess to reading critiques, even the more hermetic ones [diagonally] if only to teach myself how I do not wish to write or express myself in relation to art and things in general. I certainly don't do it to decide what is good and what isn't or what I should like or set aside. Texts that accompany exhibitions, either in catalogues or in the press, do reveal a whole world of information beyond the painting that I continue to find useful even if - or rather, especially if – the text doesn't speak to me.

In my humble opinion a forgettable work does not even deserve to be critiqued, it is best left in silence, therefore a negative critique is a useless exercise. As to critiques that try to clarify or situate a work within the manifold currents of artistic expression I also agree that poets and artists tend to do a better job.

on Monday, January 28th, BradMM said

By the way, Luciano, great topic - one that needs wide, critical discussion, and consideration.

on Monday, January 28th, Brad Michael Moore said

I would hope art educated, art and history-loving, writers would just choose to research the annuals of their region (local libraries, colleges, and museums) and write articles that show how a contemporary artist's works relate to the movements of past regional/local artists. Once you have a hold upon a regional expertise, then you could better see how national and international influences came to bear upon the ideas of your regional quarry. But, perhaps, you really need to take the opposite approach - still that might tarnish your zeal for those important regional critical appraisals.

on Monday, January 28th, walt said

I'm not sure that framing it in terms of whether critics do more harm than good is what I was trying to do. But rather of what value are they? Certainly we know how bad they have become, but I truly think there were once some who served a very valuable purpose. We just have a hard time grasping this concept. Once they were not so much tied to the market as they were to the art. It had a completely different point of departure and a very different result. However one never had to depend on a critic to think for one's self.
To control the market or a specific school wasn't really the idea until relatively recently. And I think Clement Greenberg gets a lot of the blame for that kind of partisanship.

on Monday, January 28th, Mark said

Not so sure the lack of critics is a bad thing. Why should a select few decide for the masses, no matter how educated they may be? Critics and artists have done much in the past to elevate themselves above all others, not a good place to be and harmful to art as a whole. Do I need a critic to deside which movie to see, which book to read? No. I decide for myself. I do not wish to put anyone out of a job but it may be better that a show or artist is just reported on, leaving the choice to the reader then to have a critic say wether a show or work is worth seeing or not. Maybe there are few out there who can do what critics once did, maybe it is just a matter of changing times. We can not pine for what was but must work with what is. I think most artists like critics if the review is good and dislike critics if the review is bad (even tho in the past either could make an artist). But then why should a critic even be able to make an artist? I neither like nor dislike the critic I just do not think they are needed.

on Monday, January 28th, walt said

Luciano, you bring up a very poignant topic and point out some very important issues. As much as artists tend to poo poo critics a good one is very valuable. Problem is not only have they lost site of what art is and can be but they have been sidelined by the media in general who do not want to offend their advertisers (or anyone for that matter) for fear of losing revenues.

Curators, as you say have not so much filled the void that a good critic filled. Instead they have simply taken on the roll of taste maker. Good critics (I'm still not sure how good Greenburg proved to be even if he started well) can get a dialog going. Because they are in fact somewhat outside the process itself. Generally they did not speak for the museum, the artist, the collector or the gallery. The were, theoretically and at best, an outside voice that could rise above the commercial biases, the bias of artist groups, and everyone else for that matter. They got paid by newspapers and magazines because they sold copies. Which is not such a bad idea if you think about it. It helped keep the publication in business, ratings up and advertisers interested in ad space.

but when was the last time we heard from a critic like Greenberg or Rosenberg who either had their arms fully around the subject? both were themselves artists or at least with some artistic education (Greenberg studies painting briefly with Hans Hoffman and Rosenberg was a poet which fits much more tightly to painting and sculpture than many other literary forms.)

As I mentioned, I'm not sure Greenberg ended so well having gotten entangled perhaps by a bit too much involvement with the making and profiting from the success of the artists he championed. On the other hand Rosenberg seemed to maintain his objective distance quite well through the years. He is the only one with an eye to following and taking apart brick by brick the post-modernist point of view showing its weaknesses and its strengths in a very clear discourse. There is much to critic in Post-modernism. But it is quite nearly a moot point since it has so quickly digenerated into a kind of hipness alone. Ultimately it has become a kind of look with not much to say. If it looks contemporary and...well...post-modern it must be. But whether there is any real thought behind it is another question. Rosenberg continued to question everything in that carefully constructed clear eyed claw hammer mind of his.

Another problem is that post modernism by its very tenets sees itself as the critic rather than the criticized. It does not like someone like Rosenberg who can actually find its faulty logic and deconstruct it on its own terms.

Deconstructing an art form or a movement is not a bad thing as long as its purpose is to find the kernal or the seed of what is worthwhile, or to prune back the branches so the fruit can grow. But as you suggest, Danto's point of view puts everyone in a box, closes the lid and nails the coffin shut. What's left to talk do but bury the body?

So we come back to curators. Curators probably have the least connection to art since a vast majority have had little if any education as artists. They do not know the inside. They are not always historians per se. They are more like catalogers or perhaps whare house managers. They know where a thing goes because of the number on the back. If someone else hadn't done the work of researching,documenting, theorizing and proving in the first place they wouldn't have a clue.

So who does that leave us with? The best review of a show in my career was the managing editor of a local newspaper covering a show about the first gulf war. He himself was a good writer,journalist, and editorialist, a Viet Nam Vet with a point of view, but not terribly versed in current art movements. His point of view was quite fresh and authoritative. While I doubt that he would be good at it on a regular basis because of his limited background in the arts, he sized up the work in the show accurately, put together a compelling discourse on the value of said work and show and opened up the possibility of more discourse which of course no one followed up on, largely because there was no one to follow up at a similar level of intelligence.

I've read some good critiques by other artists, although often they are more backbiting and self protective of their own competition, or too squishy sweet towards their friends work (a category I can fall into myself if I'm honest which is why I don't take up the challenge.) Or they lack the critical thinking and writing ablity...and here I don't mean that they can't write a grammatically correct paragraph but that they haven't the depth of content or knowledge beyond their artistic interests to be able to say much more than anyone else. But it seems to me that some of the first art critics and art historians were other artists. Maybe its time we tried it again.

Art Blogs - Artblogs - Art Weblogs - absolutearts.com - wwar.com

01/28/2008: "The Bankruptcy of Criticism"