Critical Distance

Posted by Sarah Rowles | 17.10.08 | Permalink | Comment?

Written by Annie Artist

It has been bantered about a lot in the past few years: criticism is in crisis. Adrian Searle wrote a despairing article earlier this year on the dominance of money in the art world. Some of the critics he knew had complained that nobody took them seriously any more, and that their opinions no longer affected the reception of art work. Money seemingly had replaced the authority of the critic.
Yet, as Lynda Morris argued recently at a Tate symposium on ‘Landmark exhibitions since 1968’, art dealers have had a major effect on the content of museum exhibitions since the 1960s. It makes sense; what we see is dictated by what is popular, what’s in town, who has just bought what. So, ultimately, money is what makes certain art popular. It doesn’t determine its critical reception, but it might command more media attention than more slight works that are more difficult to commodify.
The internet is largely to blame for this supposed critical crisis, although I would argue that the situation is a positive one. As in any moment in history, there is some terrible art around that makes the good stuff look even better. And ironically (or perhaps classically), the work which sells for enormous amounts seems disproportional to its quality as judged by critics. We hear about this work all the time because it grabs headlines. It is tiresome to constantly hark on about price, because as Robert Hughes argued in recent documentary ‘The Mona Lisa Curse’, it is like a layer on top of the work and shouldn’t influence our reception of it. 
Yet the judgement of quality should not be the responsibility of a single or select few elite commentators. It can never be, because thankfully art is diverse and deserves opinions from wide ranging individuals. We don’t need to have our work accepted to a publication in order to nominate ourselves as art critics, because we can start our own blogs or sites online, available to anyone.  Thus roles are not so clearly defined. A curator might be an artist too, and a critic might curate shows sometimes. It is all essentially similar activity, since artist as maker / critic as interpreter / curator as organizer is often subverted in contemporary art anyway, which is what makes it exciting and worth talking about.
Undeniably the more writing on art is swimming around on the internet the greater the variation in quality. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater; the more voices the better. As James Elkins points out, art critics are rarely formally trained in the subject area. They are likely to have progressed from being artists, curators, writers or poets before moving into criticism. There is therefore no official stamp to distinguish the educated critic from the average individual. Experience is going to help a writer to choose their words precisely, to understand the particular historical and theoretical context of the work and provide them with a richer understanding of the artist’s intentions, perhaps. But to me, art that needs that backlog of information to be enjoyed on some level is dull - and elitist.
It is not just art criticism that has found a new, less specialised and unselected voice through the internet. Bloggers around the world on all subjects make their opinions as easily found as a newspaper article over a search. The internet is a levelling ground, and although I will check the Guardian, Frieze and ArtReview’s online content regularly, I also follow blogs that are often full of wittier, edgier and more judgemental writing.
Criticism enriches and enlightens art work, yet can not stand in for seeing it first hand. It is a supplement. Likewise, I maintain that the viewing of art solely via documentation on a screen is a poor stand-in for the real thing. As good criticism always reflects upon, context is key to any interpretation of art. It has to be seen in the flesh, and the internet’s limitations need to be taken into account.
Contemporary artists are generally articulate about their work and its influences, as well as the work of others. This helps to break down unhelpful old fashioned notions of the artist as needing the critic to inform and philosophize upon their practice. Perhaps better considered as some type of birthing aid for the work, art critics have an important job in promoting work to the public, and this role is currently in a state of fragmentation. It’s refreshing, and perhaps art criticism in its Greenbergian format has been squashed out somewhere. It is a necessary development. 

HYPERLINK "mailto:Annie.artist68@gmail.com"
http://www.goodasdead.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/mar/18/art" http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/mar/18/art, also see http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/16/artmarkets-friezeartfair

Damien Hirst’s recent Sotheby’s auction is a tired but convenient example.
James Elkins’ ‘What Happened to Art Criticism?’ (Prickly Paradigm 2004)