Crisis of Criticism
Paper Visual Art talk with Declan Long, Joanna Derkaczew, Jim Ricks, and Rebecca O'Dwyer
Originally presented on 3 June 2014
by Jim Ricks
Just over a year ago, the newly appointed editors of Paper Visual Art, Marysia Wieckiewicz–Carroll and Nathan O'Donnell,
invited four arts writers to respond, present, and discuss the question: "What do you expect
from art criticism?" The following is my talk, re-presented now as it continues to be an entirely unresolved issue in Irish Visual Arts.
The following is by no means all encompassing
and is a bit schematic. And don’t think I’ll answer the
question “What do I expect from criticism?” I’m not sure what
my expectations are. Perhaps they don’t exist.
As an artist and one that works in
myriad of hybrid, meta ways, perhaps I offer a different position on
critical writing. Perhaps Artist’s Writing describes my angle
better than Arts Writing. Therefore, I will take a fluid approach
with different reference points.
I see criticism as an important and
necessary tool in my and the Irish Art World’s development. On the
one hand, it is an extension of my art practice. It is a valuable
mode of exploration, and articulation. Writing critically, sharpens the
critical mind. It is an exercise in unpicking the dense collection of
signs that comprise most artworks. An analysis, and a means of really
looking, it is thus a conceptual ‘Way of Seeing’.
On the other hand, I do it because it
needs to be done.
So maybe instead of my expectations,
instead I will refer back to the original, somewhat hackneyed,
working title of this talk ‘Crisis of Criticism’ or ‘Criticism
in Crisis’.
I think firstly this is an ongoing
struggle for many areas of criticism as they try to reinvent
themselves, maintain credibility, stay current, and rescue their
relevance. And I can’t help but think this is a
very introverted self diagnosis and a form of collective
hypochondria within the Irish Art World. I’m not sold on the relevance of the latter.
So, instead I will refer to something
else overused, a persistent fallacy and rhetorical device. That is,
that the Chinese word for crisis is comprised of 2 characters which
on there own mean danger and opportunity. The reason why this is persistent is
that, despite its linguistic inaccuracy, is that it touches on
something we perceive to be true. That there is 'opportunity'
inherent in a crisis. That a crisis is a fork in the road.
Therefore, in keeping with this, there is a reason we keep returning to
this 'crisis of criticism': because we have not moved passed this fork; this point. Or perhaps we keep making a wrong turn and end up where we
started. In fact, I think this crisis is really
much bigger than Arts Writing. It is a crisis of the Art World; of curation and
art making. And this, by extension, is merely a reflection of the crisis of
humankind at present. And it is a political crisis.
Although I’m not in principle opposed
to these, I do not mean political in the sense of Bourgeois Democracy:
voting, Barack Obama, policy and lawmaking. Nor in the overt and
direct sense associated with activism: campaigning, protesting, or
working on a single issue. But I mean rather in the broader and
original meaning of the word.
Our word: Politics, is derived from polis in Greek. Which meant city, but also importantly, a body of citizens and
citizenship. So what I am proposing is an art world,
an art criticism of citizenship. A focus on the community, how we
engage with it, define it, shape it.
Criticisms of the impotence of ‘art
about art’ should not be superficially directed at artworks dealing
with past artworks. But rather with artists, writers, and
institutions that engage only with established methodologies, forms,
subjects, and audiences. This is de facto elitism, and therefore
irrelevance, and stagnation.
Another way of saying this is: If your
primary entry point into art and your primary goal from art is more
art then I think there is a problem. Indeed, artist Thomas Hirschhorn has argued
that one should “do art politically.” The Freee collective, which includes
David Beech, recently in a text-based art piece stated:
“A properly
political art must be twice political. 1. Political art must engage
in the political struggles of the day... and 2. Political art must
transform the social relations of art itself, to rid itself of
elitism, its privileges, its hierarchies...”
Simon Shiekh when speaking on curation
asserts “Another art world is possible (if we want it).” I see
this as easily applicable to and an essential starting point for arts
writing. That is, we can make a difference. That we can strive for a
better art world here in Ireland.
But why and how is art writing not
serving the citizenship, community here? (Forgive the
generalizations.) The structures and styles of art criticism are
derivative of arts writing in the larger Art World cities (London, New York) which
are, of course, tied to the profitability of the commercial sphere orbiting these cities.
In essence, in these cities, books, essays, catalogues serve as
grandiose advertising copy. Press releases inform the public and the
critics. These are all paid for by the galleries. The point is to
add value to work, to sell it. Usually by dressing it in
intellectualisms. And as it is art, it doesn’t need to be and
cannot be proven. Philosophy lite, pseudo science, a vague
connections to post-structural cultural theory adorn works that are
often nothing more than esoteric design projects.
While this may be suitable for
collectors, I’m sure it doesn’t make for more interesting,
engaging or accessible work.
The market drives these needs. Those
outside the major currents of the market imitate those that are in
it. Ireland suffers from such mimicry. But the inverse way of seeing this is
that Ireland is situated in a fairly unique position as it does not
have the same commercial ties to arts writing: We cannot sell our
work and therefore we are free!
This freedom brings forward a number of
opportunities. Opportunities to involve more people and build
audiences. Opportunities to challenge the structures of the
status quo as Shiekh and Beech suggested.
I’ll interrogate some of them here
(and that’s not to say I have all the answers):
- Why not candor? /say what you mean? There is no reason to be cruel, but seeing as Ireland is at a disadvantage, opportunity and selling wise, why not open up the debate? If you can say it in casual conversation, why not write about it? This is to me akin to the academic critique.
- Why is print the final goal? Books, magazines are great for archiving, but digital is more fluid. Digital, online allows for new connections, new interactions, new audiences, faster. It is also far more cost effective.
- Why is writing authoritative or the final word? Artists and curators should have the opportunity to reply and counterbalance a review. Uncensored commenting should be encouraged. Or published alongside.
- Why not prioritise the discussion over the writer/writing? This means correcting your mistakes and engaging directly with your audience. And perhaps not taking your writing so seriously and accepting criticism yourself.
- Why not show your research? I think of this all the time with art as well. It is so easy to cross source information online. Images and video and gifs are readily available to demonstrate your points across disciplines.
- Can you define your community? Are you only writing for other artists all the time? Think about diversity of subjects and readership.
- How can new audiences be developed? Through expanded subjects. Through connections to the issues facing a broader citizenship. By allowing a range of points of entry to the subject matter. That doesn’t mean vulgarising, but instead popularising your writing.
- Why not more joined up thinking? Collaborate. Move beyond the individual egos and identities and engage directly with each other’s ideas. Try experimental ways of writing, conversing. Written debates. Publish alternate points of view.
In other words we need to strive to
connect to bigger ideas. To be braver, bolder. To be more honest and
to create new structures of discourse, debate, discussion... this is
the way forward.
Baudelaire famously wrote in his Salon
of 1846:
“Criticism should be partial, passionate, and political, that is to say written from an exclusive point of view, but the point of view that opens the most horizons”.
I think we have to
agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment