Is art criticism in a state of crisis? This is a question that many from the art world are asking today. Art critics no longer have the power to make or break an artist’s career, or so it seems. They no longer pre-empt emerging art movements, one of the former functions of the art critic. Instead, it seems they are the ones pre-empted by curators. Artists once relied heavily on the influence of the critic for publicity and the securing of exhibitions. Today, however, criticism seems to hold less and less importance in the eyes of the artist. Art criticism, as a form of writing, no longer announces the innovative new ‘movement’ that art has to offer, perhaps because in today’s art world, there are no hard-and-fast movements. Contemporary art generally doesn’t fit into a definable category, with set characteristics and ‘rules’. Art today tends to be a culmination of individual works, with individual aims and interpretations, open to analysis. Maybe for this reason, art criticism can no longer truly exist. For it seems we are not at liberty to criticise, when there are no comparisons to be made and no boxes to tick.
Despite the ‘crisis’ that art criticism is supposedly in, I’m still of the opinion that it, or rather, art writing forms a vital function within the art world today. I will explain what I mean when I say art writing, rather than criticism. David Joselit - and I agree with him here - argues that we must define ‘art criticism’ before we can discuss the ‘crisis’ it is in. Art criticism is based on making a judgement and not just an interpretation. I think interpretation and contextual information about a work of art, are still vitally important, but perhaps art criticism has lost its way. Benjamin Buchloh claims that “the public sphere of the museum is no longer calling for that third independent voice between the producer and the recipient.” Art criticism today has become very ‘market dependent’ and the popular press continue to play a much greater role, becoming the place where judgement today seems to be the most influential. The art world is expanding, and with this expansion comes the opportunity for anyone to write about art. The rise of the ‘blogger’ means anyone is at liberty to post their thoughts on the World Wide Web. Raphael Rubenstein claims that there is more criticism being written than ever before. But how much weight does this criticism have? If it holds no importance for the artist, then who is it really aimed at? If we are all able to write art criticism, then what makes one art critic’s opinion more important than another’s?
Conceptual artists have eliminated the critic – states John Miller – so the audience can more directly understand the intentions of the work. I believe that by eliminating the critic, we are better equipped to make our own judgements. However, art writing, whose function is to highlight a specific interpretation or give us contextual information, can be extremely beneficial in our reading of the work.
Contemporary art is often based solely on the audience’s interpretation of the work, and I can’t help but think that art writing plays an important role in forming interpretations and transmitting the intent of the artist. Often it is hard to interpret a contemporary work by one’s self, and writings by other artists, critics and journalists often make the intention of the work much clearer, even if it is formed by a single person’s opinion. It makes us think more consciously about the work. Cathy Lomax agrees, claiming that writing to accompany work can often make the work. For example, Michael Asher’s Column of Air, often described as invisible art, relies heavily on text to accompany it. Julian Mayers noted that “Asher’s Column of Air blew down on viewers as they read its wall text.” Chris Sollars backs up this view, that often text is needed to show the work’s full potential, by saying “the invisible is hard to present without a reference. These references take the form of documentation of an event or process.” Sollars talks about Gianni Motti’s nothing by Force, Everything through the Power of the Mind. In this piece, Motti sent an invitation to the Columbian president, to meet about an artwork, to which he received no reply. Motti then went to the press, stating he would use telepathy to send messages to the president about resigning. Sollars argues that “this invisible communication doesn’t become concrete until it is in print.”
So, one might ask, is art writing not more important today, due to the nature of art today? Bringing me back to my point - the difference between criticism and writing. Art criticism, to me it seems, is no longer beneficial due to the individual character of conceptual art today. Art writing, however, is all the more necessary, whether it is contextual notes giving us an insight into the background of the work, or an interpretation for us to grapple with when coming to our own conclusions about art.
References:
Raphael Rubenstein –“Is art criticism in crisis?” - http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/stories/2006/1695912.htm
Frieze Magazine – “A brief history of invisible art” - http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/a_brief_history_of_invisible_art/
Shotgun Review – “A brief history of invisible art” – http://www.shotgun-review.com/archives/wattis_institute_at_cca/a_brief_history_of_invisible_a.html
G. Baker, R. Krauss, B. Buchloh, A. Fraser, D. Joselit, J. Meyer, R. Storr, H. Foster, J. Miller, H. Molesworth – “Round Table: The Present Conditions of Art Criticism” October. The MIT Press (Spring 2002), pp. 200 - 228
No comments:
Post a Comment