In Irving Sandler’s “Art Criticism Today” in the Brooklyn Rail, there were a number of issues put forth, including the death of polemic, the “molecularization” (Guattari) of discourse about art away from any sort of movements, and laid out a number of questions about the state of criticism in today’s art ecosystem. First, I salute the mention of Artforum’s original mission in combating the emergent cycle of art-capital as the “art industry” became the gluttonous frenzy of fairs, galleries and countless sycophants banging at the gates.
Don’t misunderstand me. I am not a “sour grapes” artist who is discounting the art market because I have had no successes. I have either shown in or been involved with projects for the Whitney, Venice, and Maribor biennials, and am in several permanent collections. But I don’t drive a Lexus either, and this is not why I left a lucrative job in engineering to pursue art, either. I did it for love and for the fact that I was supposed to be blind by 30, and now at 50, am blessed with having made the best decision of my life. Also, I am a “New Media Artist/Curator” which made Hyperallergic’s “Top 10 Most Pathetic” list this year, so if I were truly concerned with being a blue-chip darling, I should have gone and slit my wrists long ago. That being said, I’d like to reply to Mr. Sandler’s article, and then to his answers. Mr. Sandler mentions Jerry Saltz’ derision of “art fair frenzy, auction madness, money lust, and market hype” and whether it influences criticism. Let’s just say that it does, and set that aside. Sandler then says, “that as critics we should investigate the art industry’s values, infrastructure, and practices.” To that, I say, “Well, that’s just great.”, as I wrote in a recent entry of the blog RealityAugmented that curation, and might I say criticism as well, is no longer a pyramid, but a logarithmic “power curve”. Here, the pyramid’s sides sag into a steep saddle where power is concentrated amongst the metaphorical 1%, then to a eroding group of “Lower-upper and Middle-Class” critics, curators and gallerists. They fight to stay above today’s sea of pop-up, residential, and independent spaces, which sit upon an even larger sea of online content. At first, it might seem a bit depressing, but I think there is a silver lining that ties back to Artforum, and to a seminal book by activist art scholar Gregory Sholette. The point is that there is too much made of the art market, and to be perfectly honest, that isn’t where the best art is. In Sholette’s book, Dark Matter, he describes that like dark matter comprises 95% of the known universe, the majority of art practice is unseen by the magazine critics, gallerists and the lot. Much of the activist work he describes is largely uncrecognized by the institution, although the PAD/D archives is at the MoMA, and Marc Fischer, et al’s Temporary Services projects has been featured globally. My contention is that the bulk of art is at the bottom of the “long tail” of the sagging pyramid that I speak of, with its pop-ups, apartment shows, and the like, and in some ways, it reminds me of the 1960’s where studio events, Happenings, and so on proliferated much art of the time. However, it is also important to note that the Internet has totally changed the landscape, and has produced abysses of art across the gamut, along with the abject curatorial gesture of the “like” and funding methods like Kickstarter and stores like Etsy. This is not the 60’s, nor do I intend to imply it is. I also believe that the “art world” to wonder about its primacy in this age is also akin to the recording industry’s worries about downloads and independent distribution. And with self-curated image sites like Pinterests and tumblrs (realizing these will become anachronistic in the next five years), curatorial practice is upended and possibly even banalized, even though quasi-movements like The New Aesthetic use these technologies for dissemination of its ideologies. Bottom line: the ‘art world’ currently only matters to a given body of people, and those people are of Sandler’s ‘art industry’; but that is to ignore certain things. The first of these is a larger definition of Sholette’s ‘dark matter’ that culture is awash with to include all the grass-roots art production that happens today which is off the tabloid radar. This assertion also makes visible the idea that art is only as good as its value in the art world ecology of capital, which becomes less and less accessible as the pyramid sags, and more power concentrates in the hands of fewer people. The work, in following, affects fewer people. Therefore, I want to frame my response to Irving Sandler’s questions in saying that as the art world becomes smaller and more concentrated, it becomes more irrelevant to culture and the importance of ‘dark matter’ starts to take over. In the online forum of the Brooklyn Rail, Sandler put forth a series of questions that I’d like to address, framed by my discussion above. 1. What should art criticism be doing? The question is also “What is art criticism doing now?”, to which I would say that it is talking to the fine art industry, which is receding and ascending simultaneously. What should it do? Perhaps it should look at art and artists in a larger context and reflect on artistic practice in a sociocultural perspective in the vein of curators like Sholette and Thompson. 2. What are the issues or polemics, if any, for art criticism? This certainly has to do with legitimacy, relevance and audience in terms of traditional criticism and the rise of influential art blogs. Who is respected by the contemporary audience, and why? Is it because of influence, because of experience, or because of profile? In criticism, what role has Jerry Saltz’ part on ‘Work in Progress’ served in regards to his own career? This media attention certainly makes him a known entity, now possibly as much as Greenberg in his time. But what does this say? Is art criticism equal to "Flava of Love?" 3. Is there a crisis in criticism? There may be within the ‘art world’. There seems to be a molecularization of art that has collapsed down to the individual as Sandler states, but outside the ecosystem of blue-chip/metro galleries, museums and collectors, there is a thriving ‘dark matter’ art world with a lot of work being made of various grades and genres. 4. Has art criticism been marginalized in the art world consensus? Is it influential in terms of what readers think and do? I feel that if criticism has been marginalized, capital has done so for its own agendas, and critics may self-ostracize in not having the independence to work ‘outside the loop’, choosing to work within a Poe-esque Masque as the plague of change ravages the margins of the art world. 5. Who and what is an art critic? One can be flippant in using the axiom, “Everyone’s a critic…” However, today this means that to one extent or another, criticism includes comments on Amazon, so we are dealing with a flattening of legitimacy of the ‘high’ critic. But then, this happens to curation as well, as a ‘like’ is a form of curation… that being said, a critic is a person who offers a (hopefully) measured review of work in order to influence taste. The best instances of this today are the high-profile blogs like Art Fag City, Hyperallergic, Paint It Red, etc. There will always be a place for the Times and Art in America, but the reality is that the basis of criticism is widening. 6. How would you define yourself as a critic? Reviewer? Essayist? Theorist? Artist-critic? Blogger? As an emergent 90’s New Media practitioner, I consider myself a theorist from which my art, criticism, and curatorial practice emanates. This comes from having worked in a genre that wasn’t defined until the early 2000’s, and before then, that community was certainly inter-genre, often wearing all the hats of curator, critic, theorist, and artist at one time or another until the seminal shows of 1998-2000 cemented the genre in the art world consciousness. 7. For what audience do you write? I write for general. Contemporary, New Media and Digital Humanities audiences. 8. Has the Internet been good or bad for art criticism? Does it raise the issue of elitism versus populism? It has broadened notions of legitimacy and focus. Criticism has definitely widened beyond the magazines and newspapers, and from a conventional point of view, this can be seen as threatening, as every form of media seems to feel threatened by the changes brought about by the ongoing Digital Revolution. We might consider the role of cultural producer, rather than in terms of elitism and populism, might be better framed by deskilling and deprofessionalization that are tools of capital to create goods cheaply and quickly. Global culture is witnessing the deprofessionalization and subsequent amateurization in terms of unpaid labor) of the critic. Depends on your point of view. In terms of the traditional ‘art world’, I feel it has turned the genre on its head, with younger critics like Hrag Vartanian and Paddy Johnson using their blogrolls with equal power to established organs such as the Brooklyn Rail and New York Times. A critic is now someone who can build an audience as much as someone who is legitimated by an institution. The Internet is bringing into question the conversion of elite practices to folk. 9. How do you deal with the proliferating mediums in the art world today? I stay with the artists and genres I find satisfying, and keep an eye out for everything else. 10. How has globalization of art and the art world changed art criticism? Much of this has been answered in my response regarding the role of the Internet. Much in that globalization has created a market for initially inexpensive speculation on Chinese Contemporary art, globalism has exerted the same pressures of capital upon criticism that it has upon everything else in the age of web 2.0 It wishes to have content as cheap or free as it can get so that it can then create derivative revenue or status from it. It is the axiom that if you love what you do, you might be willing to do it inexpensively, or for free while having a day job. Globalization has set the concept of value on its ear, whether in art or in criticism. 11. How has the enormous growth of the art world changed art criticism? It has created problems in terms of complicity with capital. I would like to challenge the idea of ‘art world’ as stated as only making visible the capital ecosystem of galleries, fairs, museums, and collectors. This is only a small, influential part of the overall art environment proper. 12. How do art magazine policies affect art criticism? Within the ‘art world’ proper, they have a great deal of influence among collectors and fairs, but that sphere of influence is become smaller, more rarefied and concentrated. Look to the blogs. 13. Are gender-based and political issues still viable in art criticism today? Of course, but the question is whether they are addressed at high profiles, or whether they are dealt with in terms of ‘dark’ culture? 14. Is it a function of art criticism to analyze art world institutions? It is ‘a’ function, but far from the only function. Patrick Lichty Assistant Professor, Interactive Arts & Media Columbia College Chicago 916/1000 S. Wabash Ave #104 Chicago, IL USA 60605 "Some distractions demand constant practice." _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
