Caring What the Critics Say
Considering criticism
Posted by: Lisa Radon on Aug 25, 2009 at 08:00AM
15 Comments
“I don’t really care what the critics say. I’m here to facilitate what artists want to do.” So says, Gavin Shettler of Milepost 5 who will be talking with Eva Lake today about the recent Manor of Art show on Eva’s show, Art Focus, on KBOO at 11:30 AM today.
We can only assume he’s responding not to critical condemnation, because neither the papers nor the blogs really dug in critically to his recent Manor of Art show (co-organized by Chris Haberman). A massive like this doesn’t want critical scrutiny (in more ways than one). I think he’s responding to a comment on a Culturephile post made by a Portland artist and curator which really was more criticism in the traditional sense, as in, “Yes, your butt does look fat in those jeans,” rather than considered feedback.
Shettler’s desire to support “what artists want to do” is a key point. Because the Manor (and ensuing blog comment craziness) makes clear that there are many artists who simply want exposure, approval, sales, or silence. Lucky for them, critics, particularly those writing for print publications, don’t have space to consider their work anyway.
So what is criticism, and who does want it? Gallerists, curators, and artists alike, from Elizabeth Leach to Namita Gupta Wiggers to Seth Nehil are asking for more and deeper critical consideration of visual arts in Portland. In response to recent comment-a-thon on that earlier post, I’ve been thinking about the functions of criticism both generally and in the Portland arts ecosystem.
Criticism is a conversation that includes the artist, the critic, and the reader. The artist initiates the conversation when he or she publicly shows his or her work. Via this conversation, the general reader learns about the work, perhaps for the first time, learns a bit more about the artist, and is given tools to understand it and its place in the history of art and the broader world. When it is good, the conversation can tease out layers of meaning and inquiry in the work as intended by artist and perhaps even those the artist was too close to the work to see. And it can give us different ways of thinking about a work both in context of the exhibition via consideration of the curation of the show and in the broader context by bringing critical theory to bear on the work.
Seen in this way, a primary criteria for evaluating art is whether the work brings anything new to the conversation. Or is it like one of the 5 or 6 stories your dear uncle tells every year after Thanksgiving dinner? We listen because it is a good story, but recognize we’ve heard this one before.
So what are some of the larger functions of criticism?
+ Providing feedback, recognition, connection to potential dealers, collectors and peers to the artist.
+ Writing the record. As someone who is currently doing research into regional art history, I deeply appreciate the yellowed clippings of reviewed shows that give me the picture of the moment as well as the work and the artist. Criticism is the first step in the writing (with a capital W) of art history.
+ Via critical theory, inviting us to step back from the work and examine the conditions under which it is produced and displayed.
+ Encouraging deeper engagement on the part of the viewer by posing questions, by situating the work in art historical context. The engaged viewer is the potential collector and patron. In the broadest sense, if we can foster deeper engagement through conversation, we are contributing to the health of the artist, gallery, institution in Portland.
As artist Mark Randall said in the comments on the review I referred to earlier, “…people are actually taking the time to converse and opine about this show. That’s always a bonus.”
i’m afraid that crit is often viewed as not much of a conversation, and with good reason. artist puts stuff out there, usually with much hard work and often with great personal vulnerability. critic (and perhaps editor, or a publisher who gets ads from a certain gallery or presenter, and please, those of us who’ve been in this industry for decades let us NOT kid ourselves that many magazines and papers are not somewhat advertising-driven)… so these folks decide what’s worthy of bothering to write about…… crit gets written…. artist may or may not be accepted into the annals of art history….. art history may come back and rediscover artist 40 years later, having completely forgotten all the local critics from that time….. up until the zine revolution, independent media revolution, and the fabulous internet, this was a closed loop of a “conversation.” naturally, artists and curators tend to get defensive about this process….. and yet we can learn from it, all of us can….. perhaps conversations like this are a start….. PS: i do reviews (not exactly highfalutin’ “criticism” most of the time, but art and performance and music features and such) as well as making art, creative writing, etc. so i do come from both sides of what is too often a one-way “conversation.” …. i’d also like to recommend this article by Willamette Week critic Richard Speer: http://www.2gq.org/2005/11/critical_quanda.html
OK, the above URL is WRONG WRONG WRONG! and then i reposted the right one in some other Culturephile article, so i’m really batting a thousand today. sorry!………….. also, lisa, can you tell us how to get paragraph breaks in comments?…. HTML doesn’t seem to work……………………………………………………………………………
http://www.2gq.org/2008/11/critical_quanda.html
I actually studied criticism in grad school. And one idea is that criticism creates a benchmarks in the landscape. I suspect if you aren’t interested in those benchmarks you are more than likely to wander around and get lost in that landscape repeating yourself. It’s very important to be aware of where you are. Thus, a review isnt “the map” it is a point on the map, a coordinate, that’s why critics do it. It allows others to coordinate subsequent efforts more effectively rather than repeat the same old route or formula.
There is there never enough criticism for all of the culture that deserves it, so I take steps to make cetrain there is more… though I pretty much focus on visual arts and iconic structures these days.
That is why criticism is a form of respect, even when it’s cutting… it isnt done for the sake of the critique it’s for sake of giving an honest response to those who might find it worth considering.
Tiff, I’m sorry, I don’t think we can make para breaks. Comments don’t seem to be accepting HTML…see an earlier comment I wrote chock full of functionless
tags. Will ask web team to see what can be done. Also, thank you so much for your perspective. Comments on blog posts are great enablers of broadening the conversation, n’est-ce pas?:::::Jeff, good to hear your thoughts on this. I like your idea that criticism is a form of respect, that the work merits response. And I like the idea of critically mapping the landscape.AND, thanks for the link to Richard’s great piece, “Critical Quandaries.” Very illuminating. Again, http://www.2gq.org/2008/11/critical_quanda.html.
Here is the problem with you young artists out there! You’re a bunch of sissys that have been told all your life you are so great, and everyone likes what you do no matter if it’s good or not! It’s no wonder you don’t like criticism. Gah… I’m only 30 and I sound like an old man. In truth I’ve been drawing and painting since I was 6, won a high school scholarship award in art, took a few fine art college courses, took many a Art History classes, and went to design school at PSU. I think I know what I’m talking about here. “I don’t really care what the critics say. I’m here to facilitate what artists want to do.” WTF Gavin…? Really… do you not understand that in fact what artists what to do and what people critically think about said art are two sides of the same coin… Without one there is not the other. Without criticism you’re just in your rented studio doing whatever you want to do… it’s kinda like me sitting at home in front of my 42" LCD HDTV watching Dancing With the Stars! [kidding, sort of] It becomes a hobby at that point, it’s not art! Given it may be artistic, but so is scrap-booking! In the design world, where you make money using your creativity [huge generalization], you should always look for good criticism to make your designs better. If you do this and strive to create better “art” or “design” then you improve over time. You learn new tricks and you look at the creative process differently. I personally hope I never become content to just make things. I want to always learn from what is being done now/then… even when I actually am an old man in 30 more years…
http://kboo.fm/node/16077
Above is a link to the interview with Gavin. I think you’ll see that the quote of his is within a larger situation, “encouraging expression on lots of different levels.”
I didn’t realize until this interview what kind of diversity there was in the audience. Many relatives of people who spent time in that nursing home came to this exhibition, a lot of people who never (or rarely) go to art shows.
I think there should be more I’s and fewer They’s and We’s in criticism. I can’t help think that there is no “outside” of ourselves and even though I am somewhat aware of the post modern vein of criticism and I can’t speak for or through that theorist. I am left with myself. Maybe I watch too much Oprah, but there really should be more “I feel” and “I think” statements because it adds real ownership. It’s great if you’ve studied art, philosophy, communication, design, or history in college at whatever level, but we’re still left with who you are in your skin and what out of that experience you were able to relate to enough to make it a part of you. Be more personal, own your language. Oprah’s on in 45 minutes.
Gabe, you should for sure take a minute to read the Richard Speer piece Tiff links to above. He has a very personal take on his approach to criticism. You’ll appreciate it, I think. — L
You’re absolutely right, Lisa. The conversation is key. I spent years of art history hearing ‘criticism’ of past masters and movements… but it was shallow, formulaic, predictable, and lopsided. The history books missed out on the conversation entirely, which is sad indeed.
Art should be enlightening, inspiring, individualistic — a point of view that can be taken at many levels by every observer and described and talked about as such. It should not degrade to the notion of brand, or identity, or other simplistic and over-generalized observations. Or even design, which is meant to appeal to a certain demographic for particular logical and perceptual reasons to ensure sales (and not appeal to the others just as purposefully).
So it is only an actual conversation, an exchange of perceptions and ideas, that can adequately describe ‘art’ as taken in by the critic and by others to sort out the complexities of the creations, as they apply to the current, for the current and the future.
If ‘critique’ serves as a commenting upon the present and ‘criticism’ serves as a review of the past, then lets consider the critique prompting your original, earlier post as the impetus bringing us to this online conversation, and leave the criticism to later writers… And to be sure – neither is a conversation, but rather a monologue, and as such is held with disdain by almost all whom disagree with them.
That said, then the fact that we are now having this conversation should not be mistaken for the initial critique/monologue which prompted it – that was a monologue and this is a dialogue…and thank you for starting it, Lisa.
Reading this conversation from its inception, it appears that what CRC wrote under the guise of a critique was seen by many to be a mean-spirited monologue which served little purpose in starting or elevating a discussion, but rather an attempt to elevate his stature as an up-and-coming commentator. His words were taken as irresponsibly incendiary, and that they were un-necessarily so. Perhaps an actual critic would have ‘benchmarked the landscape’ as JJ put it, and then left the big questions unanswered in order that we find our own conclusions based upon insightful and constructive banter, rather than force-feeding his own conclusions with ill-worded diatribes?
As with every other industry and undertaking in which peoples endeavor, the art world is suffering with the new ease of access to so many in which to offer their ‘expert’ opinions, even when they are indeed not experts at all. The great thinkers and writers who have built their careers as expert subject-matter commentators upon decades of learning, experience, and credibility-building professional maturity have been all but silenced by the chorus of shrilling neophytes, brandishing their Certificates of Achievement with still-wet ink, and having access to millions of listeners by simply climbing atop Mt. Internetportlal and screaming through their MacBook megaphones. A voice alone is not deserving of credibility, and credibility should not be rewarded to every voice demanding it. Today more than ever it is the responsibility of the reader/listener to grant credibility to others themselves, and woefully they are equally as lazy to consider the credibility-worthiness of ‘critiques’ just as often as the millions of ‘critics’ are in writing/speaking them.
Hopefully this conversation serves to show us all that we share in the need to listen carefully to what is said about our art community, and to grant credibility carefully. And that it allows CRC an opportunity to re-think the delivery of his opinions, in hopes that he strives to earn-back whatever credibility may have been lost to his promising young career with more thoughtful critiques in his future. Portland and every city offer a wide breadth of quality and style of art – and Portland stands proud in the sheer quantity of highly-desirable artists. We aren’t lacking in quality or reputation, just in the quantity of art-buyers here…and its arguable that negative monologues like this one we are speaking of are actually creating and fueling this problem. It’s impossible for any art or artist here to ‘poison the well’ of our art reputation, because it is always in the eyes of the beholder, in spite of what critics say. No matter the quality or depth-of-meaning of my childhood scrawls, no one ever could have convinced my family those scrawls were not worthy of prominent display on our refrigerator – those ‘buyers’ of my art were the only critics who mattered, and they knew it! Thanks for the consideration and talks, PDX, this is why I love you so much!
Lisa. Thanks for getting this conversation going. Any chance of starting another to address the role of criticism in architecture?
I think the many-to-many model of communication on the web vs. the one-to-many model of traditional broadcast or print is a thrilling development in the ways that we think and talk about art (and everything really). Yes, this presents problems of filtration to locate trusted, interesting, and even “expert” sources among the noise. But opportunities include diverse and perhaps unexpected perspectives that can add new levels of complexity to our understanding of art. One of my most wonderful Portland experiences was a symposium of non-experts who met weekly to dig into 20th cent art movements. The breadth of our experiences (educational and otherwise) made for good, good conversation. Never worry about thinkers being silenced by a multiplicity of voices. Good thinking will out. ::::: And Randy, oh yes criticism in architecture is a thread that could be really fruitful. Let’s consider doing that.
It is true that art making culture continually expands its aesthetic boundaries. Working on the edge of current aesthetics requires the possibility of failure, failure to be accepted as economically successful in the present, or aesthetically successful the future-present. Many artists thrive on that risk. Good critics bring their particular view of tens to hundreds of thousands of works, their knowledge of how those artists evolved or retired, the ability to write.
The pleasure of art making is its own. Aesthetic and economic success is established by collectors including institutional collectors. Critics and galleries are part of that process, but not its exclusive conduit. But they are a demonstrated successful conduit for many.
Based on my experience, the only way for an artist in Portland to be successful in making a sustainable career in art is by exporting that art to collectors in other cities. Some critics think that too.
This is such an important dialogue, and it’s about time that it was brought up. While it is important to be proud of your work, and to stand behind it, I feel that artist’s in many ways do need to grow a thicker skin. Not all styles of art are for everyone, however it is the craftsmanship involved that should be the focus. Whenever an artist hangs or otherwise displays work, they are putting themselves out into the world for both praise and criticism. Also, while at shows the curators, artists and gallery owners are representing the work as well as their establishments. Putting your best foot forward is important in all arenas of fine art. That, I feel is forgotten, more often than not. Criticism is important because it gives us as artists feedback, and things to improve for future shows. Critics are not the bad guys, just as, not all young artists are lazy and self-entitled. I also feel that people should make up their own minds on what they like, or what they don’t.