Bluhm, in response to an
item in this
post:
The only problem
with us blogging artists is
that we can’t really criticize anything. We can’t criticize each other,
the galleries, the critics. We’re dependent on this web of connections
and can’t afford to burn bridges. I suppose it’s better for one’s own
well-being anyway to focus on the positives, on what we do like; but at
the same time, thoughtful criticism makes an art community better.
Everybody’s dependent on a web of connections. I’d say
those connections are not worth having if they break under the strain of
an honest but negative reaction, but I’m a critic. Critics put their
connections to the test on a regular basis. Those seeking safe haven
have been known to associate themselves with one group of artists,
snubbing all others. But even if each of the chosen continues to dazzle,
the critics don’t. They become boosters and not critics at all. A
critic has to be open to the possibility of failure, including her own.
If her left hand offends, she doesn’t have to cut it off but she does
have to deal with it.
Partly because Dave Hickey and Christopher
Knight believe that non-major metropolises do not offer enough room for
conflict, they think art can’t thrive there.
Knight:
In
an October lecture
at the Smithsonian, critic Dave Hickey noted that, in the Internet’s
vast territory, niches are the equivalent of villages. And art does
poorly in the homogenized, provincial ether of a village.
To thrive art needs cities, where cosmopolitan diversity, conflict and
sheer accident are the norm. (more)
There
are other, more genial models for significant arts journalism. Calvin
Tomkins, for one. An art critic once told him that if he weren’t willing to shoot, he needed to get off the firing range. If
the art world were nothing but a firing range, nobody would thrive
there.
Back to Bluhm.
I’d Never Seen Your Kind Before,
Your Every Word Was A Poem
26″ x 40″, Mixed media on paper, 2007
She is one of ten new
artists recently selected to join the Seattle art collective known as Soil. Story on Joey Veltkamp’s Best
Of.
In reference to the problem with “blogging artists is that we can’t really criticize anything. We can’t criticize each other, the galleries, the critics.”
I must have missed that memo.
In fact, I think that it is healthy to do constructive criticism of everything! Each other, the galleries and especially the critics. In fact, speaking of the latter, I think that one of the great positive effects of art blogging is the fact that we can opine on what the critics write.
On the other hand, maybe I think this way because I am sort of all three of the forementioned groups rolled into one.
Cheers…
Lenny
Regina, thanks for this!
Lenny, hi, of course by “can’t criticize…” I didn’t mean that we are incapable or that we need permission. By all means, go for it.
Regina, you made a good point with “I’d say those connections are not worth having if they break under the strain of an honest but negative reaction, but I’m a critic.” As a critic, you have a lot less to lose by being critical; people want it and expect it, because it’s your job. Artists, on the other hand (or at least the ones who want to participate in a community) are in this perpetual dysfunctional state of needing to be liked and welcomed and understood, because our livelihoods depend on it. There’s a power imbalance between artists and critics and gallery dealers, etc. (As I’m sure you realize.)
Incidentally, sometimes it seems even the professional critics in town (i.e. you and Jen Graves) are a bit apologetic when they give a negative critique. I want to bang on my keyboard at these times. (AAAAG, NO! We need you! SOMEONE has to say this and it can’t be me! And it’s certainly not going to be our dear bear Joey!)
And then you add to the mix that we’re all Facebook friends.
Actually, one of first posts I wrote on my art blog is about this:
http://gettingtoknowyoubetter.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/the-critical-limitations-of-an-artist/
I want to say, Regina, that I’m often grateful for the messy, complicated issues you raise in abundance here on your blog. And I appreciate how you’re so democratically engaged with artists, artist-writers, galleries, critics, etc. You really put yourself out there.
(Writing that, I’m risking setting myself up for claims of ass-kissing in the comments, but what can I do. I’m just being honest.)
I think there are ways to write about art using the voice of criticism and analysis without getting into flaws, failures, or perceived wrongs. I’d like to think when I’ve written about my peers I’ve done this; after all context in regards to history and contemporary climate is incredibly important and for me, this is the purpose of criticism. Too many people seem to believe that criticism is about critique; for the traditional critic ala Greenburg that may be a part of it but as an artist among my peers, not so much.
Hi Sharon. I think what you’re talking about is art discussion, which is vital. In art criticism, however, judgment is mandatory. Those “too many” people who foolishly believe criticism is about critique? They’re right. It is. But to contribute as a writer, it is not at all necessary to be a critic. You, Susanna, Emily and Joey are all excellent examples of that.
We all know what artists, galleries, etc… get from critics and art writers, but what do the writers and critics – especially critics – gain (or lose, for that matter)? It can’t be (solely) financial motivation.
(PS. My captcha wants me to put in “impudent” and “old”. It makes me wonder what cosmic force knows me so well today.)
Diana. You talking to me? If a critic’s brain were plugged into a lab for examination and that critic was looking at art that engages her, the screen would light up end to end. What do critics get out of criticism? The chance to craft a reaction, to bring to bear even in a paragraph or two what they know about their brain on fire.
Susanna brings up an interesting issue. As an artist, and a blogger, City Arts contributor, and Frye employee I find myself wondering if something I might write could somehow hurt my art career in this city. Or hurt my gainful employment.
But then, do I find myself not writing as critical, or negative pieces because of it? Or should I?
The easy way around this dilemma is simply to not write about shows I don’t like, art that I’m not interested in. But I don’t do that, at least I don’t want to do that. But I think about it-when I wrote about Margie’s show, I thought, for a moment, I really am kind of afraid to tear it apart, as I wouldn’t want to ever hurt any chance of a show with Greg Kucera down the road. I did have that thought, there’s no way around that.
But when I wrote about that show, I wrote honestly about what interested me in that work, and hopefully something that would peak interest in others.
So much art-blogging in this town is simply about describing and promoting experiences with viewing and making art-and that’s great. Serious art writing, theory and criticism should be left for more ambitious form, and perhaps that is still best in print. That being said, blogs are amazing for the community and conversations that we wouldn’t never otherwise get a chance to have with each other.
Apologies for the long-winded commenting.
Have to throw my two cents in here.
First cent: I write about art worth writing about – art that matters to me. If I criticize your work in my blog, it’s because it was strong enough to have an effect on me. I consider criticism to be a disguised form of flattery.
I’m guilty of not wanting to be hurtful because I’m afraid of reprisal from the art community. More than that, I don’t have the time to rip apart people’s work just because I don’t like; there is too much stuff I do like. And I’m usually positive in my blog because there’s enough schadenfreude in this city. I just want to lift people up!
Second cent: The aphorism is WRONG – it seems everyone wants to be an artist, not a critic. There are not enough critics/bloggers/collectors to match the number of aspiring artists in this city. Because of this vacuum I realized that promoting other artists (instead of myself) would be a lot more fun and create a lot more friendships.
Lucas – Awesome, honest answer. Thanks!
I don’t think everyone wants to be only an artist, or only a full-time critic, but having fun and friends is appealing and much easier in the Facebook era.
People tend to step a bit lighter when their blogs or comments become fact but everyone’s opinions have always been there and are still the same.
I’m a big fan of artists who have blogs that are thoughtful and have substance unrelated to the art world. Kill two birds with one stone.