Base URL: [http://spaces.org/archive/other/]

January 2007, 36 posts, 698 lines

[more]


I tend to agree with most of what Bulka said. Who is your audience?. You use "I" far too many times. Also, Cook is right about the final paragraph. I would add that the first two paragraphs could either be dropped or combined into a sentence or two. The clever symantic inner-dialog is only funny for a couple sentences. Hold off on Corbusier until later in the piece. Please.

In the larger sense of the "park" you are missing the majority of the "art". While the most obvious elements are covered, although for some reason they make up only a small percentage of the total piece, the landscaping has been entirely ignored. Granted, I have only been to the park twice since it was gutted and rehabbed, but I used to eat lunch there a couple times a week when I worked at the AIC (was that 7 years ago?). The difference from then to now is staggering and not only because of the enormous birdbath and the silver turd (both of which I love). Just strolling through the gardens and the like is an experience all its own. The little canal is strange, but compliments the whole. Coming through that setting and encountering the band shell is something very nice indeed. To me, the landscaping and its complimentary role with the sculpture is the true success of the park. There are prolly many out there who would not qualify "landscaping" as art. Just think of it as "earthworks".

I liked how the city used that space for temporary, large scale sculpture shows a while back. Only happened two or three times, but they were lots of fun. Remeber the Botero show? When you had to avoid all the bum shit in the grass as you walked around the artwork?!?!? Ahhh, good times...

Leonard C Pants

[more]


Hello, I have a question for the list, perhaps it has already been discussed here- if so I missed it and I apologize- but it has come up in conversation with a few people (who I think are on this list) lately so anyhow

Do critics have an obligation to see shows?

For ease we can (but need not) limit critic to just professional critics, people who are paid to do it.

Looking forward to your thoughts- Philip

www.stopgostop.com/pvonzweck

[more]


in your limits, do you mean, also, those who are freelancers and get paid when and if they write, but not if. "For ease we can (but need not) limit critic to just professional critics, people who are paid to

do it."

[more]


I bitch a lot, does that make me a critic, or simply a jerk?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:06:06 -0500, aeelms wrote

[more]


No Richard, what you do doesn't count.

You people that "volunteer" make me sick. All that crap about you trying to help out the scene and give artists a voice... Working on self directed projects... Disgusting.

And don't come back with some sort of "We the people..." argument, only Art Forum gets a say.

duncan.

On 1/17/07, rholland rholland at ponderance.org wrote:

[more]


i absolutely don't see a point in limiting it to critics that get paid for what they do. there are several critical centers/publications/platforms that i can think of just off the top of my head that are highly valuable and perhaps operate at a constant 'loss'.

but, to be short about it, yes. yes, i think people that want to use the word critic have the responsibility to see a ridiculous amount of exhibitions/films/performances/shows. maybe not EVERYTHING, and maybe even something that isn't an art show. but basically i don't understand how you can be a 'critic' and not experience what you're writing/talking about. maybe this is an overly certain answer for such a general question, but anyway, two or three cents. and besides, philip, what would lester bangs say?

brian

[more]


Mr. MacKenzie,

Your brand of tepid right wing capitalism isn't wanted around here, screw the little guy, screw the little guy is all you espouse on this forum and I frankly am sick of it. How dare you adopt this sort of negative attitude towards people who are exercise their talents and skills to try and help others.

Nothing is more frustrating than to have people constantly raining on the parade of others, if you don't have something nice to say keep it to yourself!!!

We the people will rise up and shake off the shackles of Art Forum and all of its evil ways!

RH

[more]


yes. or they should change their title to whatever keeps them most busy.

-Rob

Philip von Zweck wrote:

[more]


Take your Marxist rhetoric elsewhere Sir.

Freedom = getting paid.

Look it up.

duncan mackenzie. for Bad at Sports [http://www.badatsports.com]

On 1/17/07, Richard Holland rholland at ponderance.org wrote:

[more]


rob wrote:

So what do you call a person who writes an art essay( I hesitate to say review) that is basically a rearrangement of a press release with or without actually seeing the show? If not a critic then..... a reviewer of press releases....lazy?

David

[more]


Well we don t have to limit it to professional critics but I wanted to avoid some sort of altruism argument that could be applied to volunteers . I wanted to focus instead on people for whom it is a job, even if it is part time or freelance, primary source of income or not, if one is getting paid then I don t think you can deny it is a job. I am happy with including people who don t get paid. Maybe it should be people who accept the term being applied to them, who view themselves as critics. PvZ

--- aeelms at aol.com wrote:

www.stopgostop.com/pvonzweck

[more]


In my mind, anyone with an opinion who writes it down or tells it to at least one other person is a critic.

and really the only thing that matters is if the other person gives a rats ass about what you have to say.

and you need to go and see shows, its the least you could do, pay or no pay.

best regards to one and all,

Justin

[more]


You want a critic to show at your space?! First you need to know your prey.

Criticus Invisibalous is actually the most common of all the critics. Known for there candor at parties where you aren't, their opinions seep into the brain pans of those around you and are muttered aimlessly at openings you attend later.

Criticus Superior is the critic most likely to attend your program. They typically arrive before the work is hung, deride you, then leave without another word. These critics frequently perch at local weekly's and are derided by Criticus Invisiblous.

Criticus Pomodernous is an interesting species that attempts to review artists works through an arcane method of meta-transferance. They are the most psychic of the lot as they are able to establish the most obscure and useless relations of an art and its viewer by simply reviewing a press release.

Criticus Institutionalous is a breed fostered most often in the glens and remote places of learning. Institutionalous is drawn to but never mates at the art spectecle instead they hang back and point until their fingers numb or simply fall off. see Criticus Invisiblous

Criticus Mobilous is known for it's breef and sometimes silly dances of glee as it sings the praises of an artist that is breeding in a place it wishes to breed. see Criticus Institutionalous

Criticus Mundi or the world critic is the critic most likely to emulate the voice of Criticus Supremator the Declaimer. Criticus Mundi has a shrewd dance whereby they occasionally seek out shows to review for major publications but usually ask for favors instead. see Criticus Pomodernous

Criticus Supremator the Declaimer is a figment of my imagination. No one actually reviews anything here accept Duncan and Richard and the only people that listen to them do so because they like to be reminded why they no longer live here.

So there you go, Hope the review fest works for you and remember to wear orange. MT/DB

From: David Roman droman at rcn.com Reply-To: group at othergroup.net To: group at othergroup.net Subject: othergroup 2995: critics question Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:37:21 -0600

rob wrote:

So what do you call a person who writes an art essay( I hesitate to say review) that is basically a rearrangement of a press release with or without actually seeing the show? If not a critic then..... a reviewer of press releases....lazy?

David

[more]


So a question attached to Philip's original one.

Are critics actually useful? It seems most artists and galleries get by just fine even in the complete absence of critical ponderance by full-timer. I've been considering a "life of art" a lot lately and, frankly, I haven't once considered the role art criticism might play in my success or failure. Is that simply poor planning on my part, or is it just a wildcard factor so easily overshadowed by other real concerns (like healthcare, successfully finding good backup part-time employment, etc.) that it isn't worth worrying over?

[more]


The word itself, "critic," needs an update. So negative. "If you choose to criticize, you choose your enemy," Ozzy Osbourne philosophized in one of his songs. I know, you're saying to yourself, "My God -- I didn't know Ozzy carried such authority in the arts!" ;)

Insurance companies have "assessors" to determine the value (usually of damage) to one's house or car. But see how positive that image is?: "assessor" and NOT "realestate critic," NOT "property condemner."

We need to brainstorm a new moniker for these professional "taste assessors" in the arts.

Of course, as someone around here pointed out, we are all critics to some degree; no way to avoid it. If I weren't such a Marxist, I'd quote Ayn Rand's maxims about how none of us can really abdicate judgments and values.

Brian makes a fine point about "professional" critics -- the ones who somehow managed to shirk real work and get paid for their opinions (yes, that IS envy talking!) -- needing to cast a wide net before ascertaining the worth of a subject/object d'art. I think most people have learned which critics they tend to agree with and trust -- and which ones they owe it to society to shun, harass, ridicule and abuse.

Sometimes it's hard to fit new art into old categories. Critics need to keep current; progressive artists need to know when to ignore dinosaur minds incapable of "getting" what the artist is actually doing.

I recently wrote a surreal novel that peers into this subject of elitist views and arbitrary values. (It's called Face of the Screaming Werewolf.) But I can't say I'm that much closer to nailing the coffin lid down on this subject.

Cordially,

Ken Gage

-- William S. Burroughs

[more]


As someone who has been paid, however poorly, to write about art, the answer is yes. One has to see many shows to know what this show is. Gotta know some history. Gotta know some pop culture.

A few notes back someone mentioned rewriting a press release. If this is in the Shoppers' Newsletter, some artists would be happy for the notice. Don't count as criticism.

What was the question again? Did somebody think they were burned? We're friends here. Dish.

m

[more]


OG's

Dogmatic did a tremendous job summing the whole thing up very well. That was hilarious and on-point at the same time. There is more than one type of critic and more than one absolute situation in which art/criticism takes place. I have always thought that in order to understand the process which defines the term, art critic, is to have a go at it yourself. Not just once or twice, but write a couple a month for four or five months. Put it out there for peer review. Following that you will most certainly have a clear idea of who becomes a critic and what it means to review shows on a regular basis.

In this sense, how 'bout a group activity? I know that doesn't really ever work with OG, but here goes anyway. I am going to pick a single show that opens in Chi-town in the next couple weeks. Everyone goes that is interested and then writes a short (or long) piece/review. We post them here and see what happens. Having a chance to read multiple views of a single show can be fascinating regardless of the actual artwork.

Anyone interested? We tried to get this happening with Gravy for years, but it never came about. People seem to prefer writing about what is a critic over and over instead of actually finding out what a critic is.

[more]


I was once told the following piece of wisdom:

Those who can do

Those who can't, teach

Those who can't teach become critics

Those who can't be critics become curators

[more]


I agree with amikos, Dogmatic did a great job and was funny too! Kudos!

I'm interested in writing about a show. as long as its one that I can get out to. Pick one and lets do it. not that anyone knows me, but why does that matter?

And about Mr Holland's piece of whispered wisdom, how about:

Those who have nothing to loose and nothing to prove, who just love art and don't mind possibly making a fool of themselves write their opinions about a show they see. definitions be damned!

apples anyone?

[more]


I like this idea. Count me in but it would depend on the show because I would feel the need to know something about the genre of work involved and its context.

William Conger

--- amikos at looseknitcollective.com wrote:

[more]


Amikos wrote:

Everyone goes that is interested and then writes a short (or long) piece/review. We post them here and see what happens

This sounds like a fine project, but is not actually what I was asking about, neither is the definition of a critic. I was asking about the professional responsibilities of one who has chosen the title/job of critic? Do they, as appointed/anointed authorities, have obligations, and what are they? In particular what are they relative to seeing exhibitions? Do we, as readers (especially the casual reader, not just the art scenester), grant them power based on faith that they have seen more than us? Why should I believe Critic X s recommended show of the week if I don t believe they saw 5, 10, or 20 other things that they didn t give their endorsement to?

PvZ

www.stopgostop.com/pvonzweck

[more]


As a writer who is also paid to write about art (I don't call myself a critic but I think it's kind of beside the point - traditional art criticism barely exists now. Ask Jim Elkins) - I have to throw in my two cents:

I chose this career because I love art. But like other people in this community -- especially artists and arts educators -- it is difficult to make a comfortable living at it.

I try to see as many shows as I can, and I see a lot. But if I am assigned something two days before it's due, the gallery is only open one day a week, and I am getting paid so little that it *literally* barely covers the cost of transportation to the gallery, then guess what? If there's a website with images and a press release, that might be all I can see. This is rare but something that does happen.

When a writer deals with multiple deadlines each week, sometimes these things really do get in the way, especially because the denizens of the art world are one flaky-ass bunch. More than once I have trekked across town on a blustery Saturday, the kind of day I'd rather spend knitting and eating soup, to go see a show I've been assigned to review, but there's nobody there to let me in. Or I have questions about the work, and nobody answers my phone calls or emails. Or I try to make an appointment, but cannot. If I didn't cobble together something to send to my editor, it would be *me* that looked bad.

I am willing to live with this, because I would rather do what I do than work in an office.

To claim that critics - writers, reviewers, whatever, have some kind of "responsibilty" to see X amount of shows per week is to misunderstand the nature of their job. We all hope that they are as informed as possible about the art scene, but their only real responsibility is to themselves and their employer. Nobody should blame any working writer who gauges the amount of time and effort spent on a review by the amount they're getting paid for it. If it sounds like a re-hashed press release, maybe it's because the writer couldn't justify spending their valuable time martyring themselves to the cause of art. They need to get it done.

Even a paraphrased press release accomplishes something. It publicizes a show. And I think artists and gallerists in this town can use all the help they can get.

The faux "power" critics are granted is perpetuated by the people who insist that they are somehow superior to them. Usually, they're just a talented writer with an interest in art who manages to get their work published. If you don't like their opinion, that doesn't mean their work isn't valid. I resent the implication that critics do what they do because they are some kind of rarefied breed with a host of alterior motives. I think most art writers are just trying to make a living doing something they love, trying to contribute in their own ways to an ongoing dialogue.

Thanks for reading my rant. Audrey

[more]


Justin,

You have just describe Richard Holland's (marxist dog) life.

duncan.

On 1/19/07, Justin Goh reallyround at gmail.com wrote:

[more]


"Those who have nothing to loose and nothing to prove, who just love art and don't mind possibly making a fool of themselves..."

Every critic ought to have those words tattooed backwards on him/her, so they appear in the mirror as a daily reminder. ;)

-- Ken

P.S. -- Tonight at 10:00 PM in Chi-town, multimedia artist Rik Garrett is performing at Hotti Biscotti on 3545 W. Fullerton (no cover charge, ye art bums!) ... in case anyone here is feeling adventurous: [http://www.ravished.org/] . Should be a rather demented show. Want to review it?

[more]


Ken, you just needed an excuse to promote your crap.

[more]


Not at all. I promote my crap all the time without excuses: [http://www.angelfire.com/music/kengage/kengage.html]

I just found out about Rik Garrett's event this morning, so I tossed out a link. It's rather cynical of you to assume I'm some sort of concert promoter or something.

I promote everybody's crap, actually. That's what web surfing is all about, providing little clickable URLs.

For example, after my name on this post is a link about Space Invaders. Because Space Invaders is khoul!!!

Sincerely,

Ken [http://www.spaceinvaders.de/]

[more]


I'm up for a show, but wouldn't want to be subjected to any blandness or subject matter that offended my longstanding amorality. ;)

So it's more a question of trust, as you reiterate ... and we can certainly trust people will want money (which reminds me of an old quote about the content of advertiser-driven media per se).

By your further questioning, it seems that a good reviewer/critic/cad will prove in her/his writing that "they have seen more [art] than us." To do this, she will have to offer an amount (5, 10, or 20?) of art examples she liked and disliked; we readers/scenesters will consider this examinination valid, I suppose, if we can't come up with too many serious refutations against said critic's printed judgments and wisdom.

All arts suffer from this seemingly universal state where quanity (popularity) can be traded for dollars and doughnuts without considerations of quality (taste, skill, innovation or other criteria considered godhood for/by artists). The elite minority need to educate the consumer majority (and consumer education/"indoctrination" is at the heart of business models) without the baldfaced lying usually associated with commercialism -- or else rely on subsidy, charity and poverty for companionship.

It is depressing though to witness the success of the mediochre who have tapped into a well-supplied market of consumers whose tastes/values I/we scorn. I'd hate to give examples from people I know -- imagine instead popular fantasy writers whose myriad readers hang onto their every hacked-out word about romance, dragons, vampires and other topics that could be handled in a clever way but are, more often than not, churned out factory-style: drivel-porridge for the masses.

The lesson is: even stupid people can drive a Maybach 62 while the smartest artists live on ramen noodles and macaroni & cheese.

Wordily,

Ken

[more]


Hello; There is some, little, but some actual criticism happening in Chicago but most of it isn t happening in Chicago based weekly s, news papers, periodicals, etc. instead it is written for art publications which will only affect the art crowd and not a greater audience.

Although I m sure this varies by outlet, I m surprised that the choice of show to cover is made not by the writer or based on suggestions of the writer, but by an editor, one I presume also has not seen the shows. Do you know how those decisions are made, how shows are selected?

While I agree that it is good to publicize art, don t you think it is more important to publicize the good shows? Does a rising tide lift all boats, or does endorsing bad (or not the best) shows eventually alienate an audience and lead to a credibility gap?

I didn t even intend to touch on this when I brought the subject up, but how is writing on a show based on a website/ press release not tantamount to reviewing a film based on its trailer, or a book based on its jacket blurbs?

Thank you, Philip

www.stopgostop.com/pvonzweck

[more]


I've never really been an editor, but I wanted to bring this up anyway. Lot's of people saying "I'll write, but only if I like the show." Mostly doesn't work that way. Especially new writers go where they are told. Maybe later, they develop a relationship with the editor and get a little more choice.

Partly, this is to avoid, as someone mentioined a few notes ago, hyping ones own crap. Or a friend's or other conflict.

The editor will, or should, have some idea of the experise of his available writers, but sometimes, no. If you can find some old New Art Examiners you can read some wierd mis-matches. And if you've done this for a while, as a reviewer or an editor, you know artists, galleries, you hear the buzz on the street. And everyone sends way too much PR. Usually noone goes to a show cold. But, sometimes, yes.

bulka

Philip von Zweck pvonzweck at yahoo.com wrote: Hello; There is some, little, but some actual criticism happening in Chicago but most of it isn t happening in Chicago based weekly s, news papers, periodicals, etc. instead it is written for art publications which will only affect the art crowd and not a greater audience.

Although I m sure this varies by outlet, I m surprised that the choice of show to cover is made not by the writer or based on suggestions of the writer, but by an editor, one I presume also has not seen the shows. Do you know how those decisions are made, how shows are selected?

While I agree that it is good to publicize art, don t you think it is more important to publicize the good shows? Does a rising tide lift all boats, or does endorsing bad (or not the best) shows eventually alienate an audience and lead to a credibility gap?

I didn t even intend to touch on this when I brought the subject up, but how is writing on a show based on a website/ press release not tantamount to reviewing a film based on its trailer, or a book based on its jacket blurbs?

Thank you, Philip

www.stopgostop.com/pvonzweck

[more]


Lots of activity and a great discussion about critics here! I'd like to add a few short comments. I get paid regularly and very poorly to write about art by several nevues, mostly Art in America. I am, however, considered, both by myself and by the "artworld," to be "an artist who writes about art" rather than a critic (as was Don Judd). Mostly, I guess, because I get all polemical rather easily, but it is a good position to be in --- one that to some extent circumvents the problems Elkins and others have oitlined with criticism today --- mostly that it doesn't exist.

Dogmatic's Critic Types are hilarious and very true I think. Several problems exist. One, critics now have really NO power. Curators ignore them and collectors simply swarm over what curator do. Two, most "artwriters" offer either daily-rag-type wishy-washy-everything-is-ok mildly descriptive pieces or are jargon-shackled academics who produce obstruse, unreadable quasi-theoretical pieces using art to illustrate some half digested trendy poststructuralist "notion."

Some nuts and bolts. Each publicatuion is different. In most of them the editor chooses the shows and tells the writer. This was first inititaed for the good reasons Bulka states, but has generally degenerated into simple economics and power-plays. ArtNews makes it very clear that writers are to do only big names when possible and certainly only in places that advertise with the. And the writer must like the show. Flash Art is similarly kiss-ass, but even worse .--- everything revolves arounf the owner Giancarlo andother editors getting opportunities to hang out with the latest fad artists and dealers --- so you can guess what gets reviewed and why the reviews are so gushingly positive usually. ArtForum tells regional people which show they can do from a list of suggestions supplied by the writer --- so, yes, Jim Y. is not free. At Art in America the reviewers are usually in the lead. We can choose what we want to do, and then ask. They almost always say yes (they just like to keep track a bit to insure that people are not just reviewing only one type of art or only one gallery, whatever). AND --- praise Betsy the Ed in Chief --- you are NOT required to like it. I got to make a special deal, where they agreed that I could review almost exclusively people they have not many people --- you've probably seen Wesley's attack on Art in America at Sharkforum, which does indeed slight Chicago, but in general does a very good job, I think, even though I am involved, both in Art in America and Sharkforum. At Art in America it is more a question of the attitudes of the individual writers.

P.S. Mike Bulka, I always enjoyed your writing on art in the NAE back when it existed and I lived in Chicago. It is good to see you are still plugging away.

[more]


Boy, for somebody who writes a lot I sure do make terrible typos. That last part should have read:

I got to make a special deal, where Art in America agreed that I could review almost exclusively people they have not heard of or that they don't know much about. And that I do not have to do any of the Biggies From NYC When They Hit Europe. So it is possible to arrange a wee bit of creative freedom, at elast as far as choice goes. Most regional reviewers are still too timid though, it appears, and don't please that many people --- you've probably seen Wesley's attack on Art in America at Sharkforum, which does indeed slight Chicago, but in general does a very good job, I think, even though I am involved, both in Art in America and Sharkforum. At Art in America it is more a question of the attitudes of the individual writers.

I need to use spell checker before I click "send."

[more]


Sorry, I was a little rushed yesterday. I can't let this slide.

Audrey Michelle wrote, among a lot of other horrible stuff:

First, who do you write for that allows this kind of shit? Does your editor know you do this? Do your readers? This is completely unacceptable.

My worst offense was the time I got the assignment the day of the deadline, and had only seen the show drunk at the opening the week before. I pulled it off, but at least I saw the show. Jeez!

A calmer question this raises, though, is what the purpose of the writing is. Publicity? Not from me. There are PR flacks that make a lot more money than I ever did. I'm not gonna be a whore for free.

[more]


My apologies. My tossed-off rant was perhaps horrible, indeed, to those who take the distinctions between different types of art writing more seriously than I did.

I didn't clarify that our discussion here does, as Mr. Bulka suggests, depend largely on the purpose of the writing. As I said, I do not consider myself a critic at all. My comment about paraphrased press releases was regarding the multitude of websites and blogs whose primary function *is* to publicize what's happening in the art scene. That's not what I do, though, and I never meant to suggest that it it would be sufficient in an arena other than an advertorial one.

I write for a variety of publications, but regularly for the online mag Flavorpill Chicago, which focuses on listing events (mostly previews - not reviews) with editorial content. It is in no way criticism, and is probably pretty far outside the scope of a discussion about criticism. In this arena I do primarily descriptive pieces, and I freely admit that. FP writers do exercise their opinions, however (albeit only positive opinions - the content is considered to be recommendations to our readers of what to see/do), and I want to make clear that the editors do *not* allow content that plagiarizes, paraphrases, or even borrows too heavily from a press release.

I think my main point was that most writers who write about art - from the PR flacks all the way up to the most academic critics - often are just doing their job the best they can and aren't on some power trip and shouldn't be viewed as the enemy. Writers can be allies - even when they don't delve into a deep discussion about the work and simply describe it - or even if they don't like the work, because they are contributing to a dialogue about the work.

Cheers, Audrey

On Jan 24, 2007, at 2:15 PM, michael bulka wrote:

[more]


Well, I'm glad michael jumped on the "gussied up" press release comment, cuz yeah, that is beyond the pail.

it is funny to read these comments as someone who likes to be a critic. for the most part, i never really met someone (sure, i try to only talk to folks i find pleseant) who was a critic for the power. what power? the politics of how magazines are too different case by case to generalize of the problems in what gets reviewed. but it is an important issue, and if you want a review in the bigger outlets, you accept some conditions, as all journalists do. just one of many overlooked issues which drives me to find elkins' little book very unhelpful and beside the point.

criticism is about trying to help guide someone else in a way of seeing, and how someone might judge an object. whether the writing is jargon filled, or theory based, or poetic, or belle letristic, or formalist. you are there to explain what you saw, how you think it fits in a world of similar or dissimilar objects, and what the result of that association is. the critic should be a guide or signpost to your opinion and how you make it, not a replacement for the reader's opinion. something you can triangulate with when you experience a work, or make you reevaluate something you liked and or dislike. some of my favorite critics are people whose taste i disagree with, but who i find very engaged and interesting as interpreters.

which is why i hate richard's list of "those who do...etc." criticism should is as creative in its relationship to an object, as an artist's to whatever inspired them. there is not a rank of import.

but i can supply christopher wool's pithy interview retort: "critics. you can't kill them, so what good are they?"

to get somewhat to philip's original thought: being a critic is about reporting or interpreting what you see, providing one model for interpretation. and you cannot do that if you are not out pounding the pavement. first and formost you need to check things you think you are uninterested in, because you have to be open to surprise, and you never know when some space or place will surprise you.

I understand audrey's frustration with getting to a place and finding it closed or no one around, but that is unfortunately part of the bargain. it has happened to me several times, but if i want to get out and see things, you gotta risk it. i would make the claim that here in chicago, if you want to be a critic of any note/respect/value/clue, you don't count unless you've seen at least 15 exhibitions a month. and that is the lowest number: what you need to be the catfish of critics.

is now the time to complain about the number of online items that supplant criticism by supposedly offering goals of 'getting people out"? there are so many now, and they, because they are trying to get people out, make everything sound great. without ever returning to say whether or not the event was any good. i have to admit this form of journalism is bugging me more and more. things that used to supply criticism, or that could supply criticism, now just cheer. flavorpill in particular hypes some real off materials here and there, not to mention often seeming to favor one or two scenes or places. some of these items supply a need, but it certainly seems they write as if they have passed judgement, and that x is where you need to be. in that light, looking back, and beyond the horizon never hurts...

anthony

[more]


Hey hey, credit where credit is due the proper turn of phrase would be "Richard provided" I didn't write it. I don't write as I am illiterate.

R

[more]


Others,

Thanks for the discussion, it is much appreciated. I would be very intereted in seeing what the opinion is on ARTISTS going to see art shows.

Is there an obligation for an artist to see their peers or can they work in a 'closed door' way?

What is an artists obligation to the current scene or to history, individuality or society?

I think the line is a more clear with critics but with artists I am less sure. But thanks for the discussion thus far.

haddon