Replace "art" with "literature" --
-- and you get all the insights you need about literary criticism, litblogging and the state of book reviewing. It's Adrian Searle's wise yet acerbic essay in the Guardian about how art criticism has fared against the flood of money in the art world:
Well worth reading the whole deal.
Some critics think that the fact that there's so much bad art around means that it is a great time to be writing about art, which is like saying that because of the plague, what a great time the 14th century was to be an undertaker. Critics aren't doctors. We can't fix things. We are not here to tell artists what to do. They wouldn't listen anyway. Maybe the word criticism has become part of the problem. Or the problem is that we are asking the wrong thing of the critic: critics are not the painting police nor the sculpture Swat team, not market regulators nor upholders of eternal values (there aren't any). Those who think they have a role to play in this regard are as jumped up as they are unreadable. Criticism might blow the whistle on overhyped art, flabby curating, moribund institutions or the odd fly-blown administrator, but that is because you cannot divorce art from its context....
Being iconoclastic, slagging off artists and institutions, gets a critic noticed. Anger, undeniably, is also a good motive for writing in the first place. Controversy, the smell of blood, the whiff of scandal - this makes careers. It also sells newspapers and magazines. Of course it is the duty of the critic to be iconoclastic, and to be reckless; but critical terrorism is no good as a long-term strategy. It becomes predictable, and the adrenaline buzz soon wears off. It is also disingenuous, and ultimately a false position. There is such a thing as bad faith, and lousy opinions....
Writing about art only matters because art deserves to be met with more than silence (although ignoring art - not speaking about it, not writing about it - is itself a form of criticism, and probably the most damning and effective one). An artist's intentions are one thing, but works themselves accrue meanings and readings through the ways they are interpreted and discussed and compared with one another, long after the artist has finished with them. This, in part, is where all our criticisms come in. We contribute to the work, remaking it whenever we go back to it - which doesn't prevent some artworks not being worth a first, never mind a second look, and some opinions not being worth listening to at all.
Blogroll
Critical Mass (National Book Critics Circle blog)
Acephalous
Again With the Comics
Bookbitch
Bookdwarf
Bookforum
BookFox
Booklust
Bookninja
Books, Inq.
Bookslut
Booktrade
Book World
Brit Lit Blogs
Buzz, Balls & Hype
Conversational Reading
Critical Compendium
Crooked Timber
The Elegant Variation
Flyover
GalleyCat
Grumpy Old Bookman
Hermenautic Circle
The High Hat
Intellectual Affairs
Jon Swift
Laila Lalami
Lenin's Tomb
Light Reading
The Litblog Co-op
The Literary Saloon
LitMinds
MetaxuCafe
The Millions
Old Hag
The Phil Nugent Experience
Pinakothek
Powell's
Publishing Insider
The Quarterly Conversation
Quick Study (Scott McLemee)
Reading
Experience
Sentences
The Valve
Thrillers:
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Crime Fiction Dossier
Detectives Beyond Borders
Mystery Ink
The Rap Sheet
Print Media:
Boston Globe Books
Chicago Tribune Books
The Chronicle Review
The Dallas Morning News
The Literary Review/UK
London Review of Books
Times Literary Supplement
San Francisco Chronicle Books
Voice Literary Supplement
Washington Post Book World