Serious art critique?
Dmitrii Manin
Because my wife is an artist, I started reading some art publications,
show reviews and articles about artists. What strikes me is that they
are invariably strictly complimentary. Well, I realize that there is
this special genre of panegyric, but are there other genres out there?
Do you know of a publication(s) where one can reliably (well, at least
occasionally) find a serious and honest critique on
artists/shows/trends?
(artwork at http://camelot.rockefeller.edu/~manin/gal.html)
--
- M
This is a custom rec.arts.fine-specific signature
Starr
>Because my wife is an artist, I started reading some art publications,
>show reviews and articles about artists.
A real masochist, aren't you?
>What strikes me is that they
>are invariably strictly complimentary.
Here is some more trivia to contemplate:
There is an interesting feature in the latest issue of ARTNEWS
beginning on page 138 of the summer 1995 "Special Issue."
Nine critics from around the world are asked to pick the best
show of the year by an emerging artist. At first, I was struck
by the number of women artists chosen--of the nine there are
six (2/3 are women). Then I compared the critics. Five of nine are
women. Then I compared who chose whom and it turns out
that two of the male critics chose women artists while one
female chose a male artist, all others chose same gender
artists.
--
________________________________________________________
The more things change, the the larger grows the diaper pile.
Billing, Starr C 1995
Bruce Attah
ma...@camelot.rockefeller.edu wrote:
> Because my wife is an artist, I started reading some art publications,
> show reviews and articles about artists. What strikes me is that they
> are invariably strictly complimentary. Well, I realize that there is
> this special genre of panegyric, but are there other genres out there?
> Do you know of a publication(s) where one can reliably (well, at least
> occasionally) find a serious and honest critique on
> artists/shows/trends?
>
> (artwork at http://camelot.rockefeller.edu/~manin/gal.html)
> --
> - M
>
> This is a custom rec.arts.fine-specific signature
Balanced art criticism is extremely rare. Few critics are without vested
interests of an economic kind, and they usually review mostly the work of
friends, or those whom they owe favours. When illustrations appear in
magazines and newspapers, they have often been paid for by a
representative of the artist.
This naturally means that the critic feels a certain obligation not to be rude
about the work.
Quite apart from this, there is a tendency among critics to believe (absurdly)
that it is their job to promote art, rather than to criticize it. If they can
find nothing positive to say about some artist's work, therefore, they will
either waffle or keep stumm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bulka
interest, although it is a small artworld and relationships between
artists, writers, dealers and editors can get rather complicated.
Photos in reviews are supplied by the gallery, but not paid for.
Sometimes you'll see a paid section, usually previews.
There is a tendency, especially now when the market is down and energy
is low, for writers to concentrate on positive things, but among good
writers, this is more an efort to encourage, invigorate, the scene,
rather than pump a particular artist or gallery. I once asked a friend
who wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times, as well as Art in America and
other places why she never wrote a negative review. She said that she
thought the best response to the work she didn't like was to ignore it.
Also, you might check out The New Art Examiner. They generally run a
higher percentage of negative, or honest, or critical, reviews than
many magazines. I try to do my part, anyway.
Michael Bulka
Dmitrii Manin
In article <3v6bqk$e...@News1.mcs.net> bu...@mercury.mcs.com. (bulka) writes:
o I once asked a friend who wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times, as well
o as Art in America and other places why she never wrote a negative
o review. She said that she thought the best response to the work she
o didn't like was to ignore it.
That strikes me as unnatural disposition for a good art critic to
divide art in likes/not-likes categories. Isn't it a rather amateurish
approach? Besides, is it possible to just like or just dislike?
Shouldn't a critic also point out weaknesses in what's generally good
and strengths in what's generally bad? Can something be only good or
bad at all? Heck, obviously not!
Again, I realize that there are and should be complimentary
articles. But isn't there a readership for impartial art critique,
that is ready to pay for it? You, as artists, think of it: wouldn't it
be more to learn from a single good critical paper that from ten
eulogies in "American Artist"? Moreso, wouldn't a modest praise from
an honest critic be ten times as treasured as an empty halleluia from
traditional show reviews?
o Also, you might check out The New Art Examiner.
Thanks, I'll try.
Dmitrii Manin
In article <3v3bgu$r...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> twi...@star.com (Starr) writes:
o In article <MANIN.95J...@pendragon.rockefeller.edu>, ma...@pendragon.rockefeller.edu says...
o
o >Because my wife is an artist, I started reading some art publications,
o >show reviews and articles about artists.
o
o A real masochist, aren't you?
Researcher. Might be the same thing though...
o >What strikes me is that they
o >are invariably strictly complimentary.
o
o Here is some more trivia to contemplate:
o
o Then I compared who chose whom and it turns out
o that two of the male critics chose women artists while one
o female chose a male artist, all others chose same gender
o artists.
This is curious, but far from what I'm interested in. It seems that
there should be at least a couple of heavyweight critics whose
financial and social status would allow them to afford telling what
they think. Further, writing complimentary articles must be a truly
awful job: one probably has to eat a jar of pickles after finishing an
opus. Arguing is much more interesting (review your own USENET
experience). This is why I think those heavyweights should write real
critique. The question is: where they are? Has anybody seen them?
Wray Kephart
X Actually, most art mags are careful to avoid blatent conflicts of
X interest, although it is a small artworld and relationships between
X artists, writers, dealers and editors can get rather complicated.
Avarice from within destroys delicate structures; so the preservative
efforts of NAE and others are forgivable *and* if I know and you know
the truth of such exhibitions the print as an afterfiction becomes much
more entertaining.
Kephart
bulka
ma...@pendragon.rockefeller.edu (Dmitrii Manin) writes:
> That strikes me as unnatural disposition for a good art critic to
> divide art in likes/not-likes categories. Isn't it a rather amateurish
> approach? Besides, is it possible to just like or just dislike?
You are entirely right - the post in general, this section in
particular.
Liking has very little to do with anything. The sloppy shorthand was
mine and not hers. We all tend to slip into talking about taste, about
"good" critics, "bad" art and the like, and only know from context what
we are talking about.
John Haber
won't make time to write about what they hate. If you're writing up
movies, you have to see them all and tell people which to skip. For
art and lit, though, we remember the critics who stuck with,
explained, and promoted movements. Life's too short for cheap scotch
or cheap art.
Ultimately criticism isn't about keeping score. It's about helping
people see and think. That can mean evoking what the art is about and
its connections to both a culture and its ideas.
That can mean sometimes focusing on art you hate, because doing that
helps you see the connections too. But mostly the thumbs down just
means you don't connect, and that's your problem. The lazy dumping on
modern art in this newsgroup alone is testimony to that.
Certainly you don't want to play some cute little institutional game
of praising things so that the gallery supports the art journal which
in turn supports you. But if you're any good, mostly it will mean
sharing your love.
--
John in NY
74504,11...@compuserve.com
amusing graphic here
Dmitrii Manin
In article <3vldbu$q...@dub-news-svc-6.compuserve.com> 74504...@compuserve.com (John Haber) writes:
o Ultimately criticism isn't about keeping score. It's about helping
o people see and think. That can mean evoking what the art is about and
o its connections to both a culture and its ideas.
o
o That can mean sometimes focusing on art you hate, because doing that
o helps you see the connections too. But mostly the thumbs down just
o means you don't connect, and that's your problem. The lazy dumping on
o modern art in this newsgroup alone is testimony to that.
o
o Certainly you don't want to play some cute little institutional game
o of praising things so that the gallery supports the art journal which
o in turn supports you. But if you're any good, mostly it will mean
o sharing your love.
There are, apparently, two different critical genres. If you're
talking of the case when the critic chooses an artist to write about,
then, indeed, it would be strange to choose someone to crush upon. On
the other hand, "sharing love" doesn't look as a very fruitful idea to
me. It should rather be "sharing understanding". Placing the artist in
a context for the reader.
But probably more important job of the critic is a wider field-of-view
analysis. Who has, more or less recently, read a review of, say,
modern tendencies in realistic still life? Or in cityscape painting?
This would not be in terms of mere thumbs up or thumbs down, of
sharing love or sharing hate. Isn't this sort of work far superior and
appropriate for a real analytical mind?