Looks like a few months worth of themed discussions here for empyre or CRUMB.
best Simon On 14 Dec 2012, at 15:13, Lichty, Patrick wrote: > 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 > Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/ http://designinaction.com/ MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
