Critical Failings, a post from the past
Continuing with the past posts here is my response to the Critical Failure: Visual Art event (the video for which was blogged yesterday).
Critical failure was chaired by Peter Mares and the guests were John McDonald (art critic Sydney Morning Herald), Naomi Cass (Director of the Centre for Contemporary Photography), Phip Murray (Editorial member of un Magazine), and Patrick McCaughey (former Director of the NGV). The discussion was lively and with considered input from each of the panellists. Below is a summary from my notes on the night.
Peter Mares began by presenting a case for the need, now more than ever, for visual art critics. The visual arts provoke aesthetic condemnation most commonly; we only hear the scandal in mainstream press. Mares cited the Bill Henson scandal.
John McDonald began his explanation of the failure of criticism by distinguishing between personal and institutional failure. He said critics can fail in the space allotted to them, and publications can fail to provide enough space. It was this latter point that McDonald stressed. He said critics need to make their own space, whether this is online in print or a combination of the two, it wasn’t clear. McDonald said later on that with the internet writers can “have their cake and eat it too” in as much as a section of work can be published in print and the rest online – allowing greater length and a solution to the decline in long form criticism.
One of the problems McDonald noted with current types of published criticism is the reprinting of the press release. Phip Murray noted that the capsule review was very common in mainstream press and often relegated to the lifestyle pages. The location of professional criticism was something all the panellists agreed on. The shrinking space allotted to art criticism and reviews was a point of concern. McDonald used to publish 3000 word Saturday exhibition reviews, and throughout the week, he said, there were other art related stories. Now it’s 1500 words each Saturday and that is all we hear apart from the capsule reviews (which really can’t be counted as reviews).
With the so called dying print media on our hands it is critics who have to take responsibility.
-McDonald
Naomi Cass began her diagnosis by positing that “if we think about landscape of criticism there might be failure from artists to institutions. We are all failing in some way.” she used the Bill Henson case to illustrate this– namely that there was absolutely nothing written about his work, nothing about the quality of the exhibition, nothing about what it might mean. The legal issues were dealt with, but there was a reticence to criticise Henson, in Cass’ words. To me this was an important point Cass made, it boggles my mind that no one sought to critically address the work, in doing so a better understanding of why everyone freaked out could have been achieved. We have learnt our lesson there.
Phip Murray began her assessment with optimism, before ending on disillusionment. I would note here that of all the panellists Murray was clear about her stance on independent criticism, particularly noting the importance of magazines like un and Flash (which is produced by Cass). She said she was optimistic because of the “robust culture of critically engaged art and art writing”. Murray said she was disillusioned because readers sticking to the mainstream press are limiting themselves and missing out. Her argument was that there is a wealth of professional and engaged criticism if you know where to look for it.
Murray was also peeved by capsule reviews, and their connection to advert dollars. She cited the connection between institutions and writers not being given the opportunity to share their ideas. un Magazine being an example of a non-mainstream publication which gives writers free reign. I would add that Art Monthly Australia is another.
Patrick McCaughey cited the decline in coverage of the visual arts as well. The important thing he noted was that years ago you had at least four critics in major newspapers who published their reviews and criticism throughout the week, like an ongoing conversation. This was important because it gave a sense of community, of knowing about something significant as it was happening. “It is critical that the artwork is acknowledged” he said.
McDonald concurred and postulated that there is more art than ever being produced and fewer critics to review and write about it. He noted the decline of visual arts coverage as being directly linked to the moment when newspapers realised they could charge for coverage of exhibition listings and the like. These comprehensive listings were vital to the community of artists making and exhibiting at the time. It didn’t happen overnight, but it did happen. I would say that what we’re left with is style and no substance. McDonald concluded that monetising such things killed them off, now they’re little more than adverts.
At this point the discussion moved to the role of online criticism. Murray and Cass very much in the affirmative and McDonald sitting somewhere near the fence. McCaughey didn’t announce either way that I can recall. McDonald from the outset was disappointed by blogs, citing reprinted media releases as being the main problem. The other problem, he said, is that they are often filled with over personal babble. “There’s a world of difference between online and print criticism.” Critics need to be authoritative, and begin a conversation. Reliability and accessibility are important here. For McDonald these things can’t happen online, (I, as you know, would argue they can and do).
McDonald said clearly he wants to see where online criticism can go – namely away from the mumbled, no strong points of view repetition we see in some websites.
Murray rightly pointed out here that writing published anywhere can be good or bad. Just because it has been published in print does not mean it’s automatically good. Just because something is online doesn’t mean it has to be avoided. The same fact checking and effort often goes in. I would agree here, emphatically, no one surely holds onto the idea that because something is published online it isn’t valid (except universities of course).
McCaughey sent the discussion back to the role of the critic saying “criticism should make a judgement” as to whether an exhibition is good or bad, that is their role. McDonald agreed here, adding that the critic shouldn’t “um” and “ah” but have a clear argument or point of view. Importantly you can get hung up on your power as a critic, according to McDonald. No matter how nepotistic. Apollinaire was cited as an example here, McDonald noted that most of what Apollinaire wrote was crap, it just so happened that her was writing about the artists who would go on to represent Modernism and change the course of art history.
The format for most exhibition reviews, in McDonald’s opinion, is something like – Good (with a few bad bits) or Bad (with a few redeeming features). It must pick the reader up from the first paragraph and carry them to the end. A review must be entertaining. Another feature of reviewing: it’s the first response (very important), to say what it’s like to walk into the gallery on that particular day. A good art critic will “show the basis for their taste not just their opinion”. McDonald said there were three things that a critic should never do, quoting from sentences randomly chosen from old reviews:
1. Try and be over witty, use colourful language and fail miserably at it.
2. This one was a little hard to figure – I think being incomprehensible as a bad idea, was what McDonald was getting at, I think. (My notes are a bit that way actually.)
3. Saying the catalogue was good. Never a good move.
The point of view of the artists themselves was discussed next. Cass called it the deafening silence, when there is little to no response to their work. Everyone agreed that visual art needs a response, and that the current one was not adequate. Another issue stopping coverage of contemporary artists’ work was again diminishing print publication opportunities. Yes everyone can start a blog, but the issue of legitimating them remains. The result is blogs and magazines run by artists in order to generate coverage of their and their peers’ work. And fair enough too. Cass worried at this point that there were many new writers (and curators) graduating but nowhere for them to go. Something I wonder too.
During the Q&A from the audience some important points were raised. One audience member asked about the standoff between print and online, old and new, institutional and independent. Murray said “we’re in transition in terms of the way the media works, for me the most important thing is talking (and writing) about art and different practices. We don’t need a hierarchy to do this”. This point led to acknowledging the way everyone responds differently to artworks. Cass suggested that “young writers are sick of the ‘canon’ and want to explore different and new ways of writing about things.”
John McDonald acknowledged the “unspoken imperative that you have to go to the big shows.” The reason for this again was money. The editors play a role in this and the audience, to an extent is perceived as wanting to know about these blockbusters. Murray gave us the alternative – the internet, it’s free. “Money is not everything, we’ve tried to ignore it” she said, and to an extent this is possible online.
Final note (which should be a call to arms): Foster the art, not the money system.
I’m not sure who said this but I will certainly be keeping it (more fully) in my modus operandi from now on.
There were so much advice and encouragement to take away from the Critical Failure: Visual Art event that I’m certainly reinvigorated to make my work better.
Image: Paul Watson
