Art theory

Checking the pulse on art criticism

Throughout art history art criticism has contributed greatly to discussions and understanding of art. Criticism has played a key role in the sense-making of art by offering a personal assessment of artworks, while bridging the gap of understanding from artwork to audience.

I picked up this topic for two reasons. Firstly, I was interested in knowing how the role of the art critic has changed over time. And secondly, I realised I couldn’t remember the last time I actually read a review of a current show. I have been studying, working, and have even been writing about art for a while, but somehow I find myself spending little time on art reviews. In my mind, I should be the perfect audience for it. So, am I just lazy or is there something wrong in the world of art criticism that I have missed (read: one statement does not exclude the other).

My previous understanding of the art critic’s role was linked to the effort of acknowledging and legitimising artist’s work. A good review can help an artist make a name for him/herself, while a bad review could set back an artist’s career. This seems pretty straight forward in earlier times where reviewers had a good overview of how many artists were represented in an art scene or movement, but a bit more complex in contemporary art where you have not only a huge variety of styles, mediums, and cultures represented, you also have vast amount of distribution channels with a constant flow content being added (especially via social media).

To gain a little more perspective on art criticism today, I have been diving into dusty history books to look for key people and events that have helped in shaping art criticism as a term and profession. Basically, I have been looking for the distinction between art history and art criticism.

Art has changed considerably over time, both in terms of creating, studying, and experiencing art. This makes me wonder how art criticism has also changed along with changing art practices, and what challenges the field of art criticism is facing today.

Through these questions and in reviewing the history of art criticism, I would like to use this research to understand the need and potential of art criticism today.

Criticism in the history of art

I have always found it interesting to go back in time to see how ideas were formed, and how they have evolved over time into something we might consider well-established components of our society and culture today. I like to keep in mind, that every current tradition was once created by someone.

Photo: The Thorvaldsen Museum Copenhagen, 2016

So, do allow me to skip into the history books a little, to browse through the past valuable writings of the Roman writer Pliny the Elder, whose descriptions of art in the Natural History (around AD 70) include some of the earliest writings on describing art; of the Chinese writer and historian Xie He’s Six Principles of Chinese Painting (6^th century AD), which were established to assess the quality of paintings; even browsing past the essential writings of Italian artist-writer Giorgio Vasari, who authored Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1550), which laid out an important foundation for art writing by including the artists’ biographies. This is just to say that, many important writings on art can be traced far back to both Western and Eastern history, but in the case of art criticism, we will have to pick up from when the term became a distinct genre of its own.

Which leads us to Jonathan Richardson’s An Essay on the Whole Art of Criticism (1719) when the term art criticism was first used. Richardson’s works both encouraged young men to embark on the cultural pilgrimage the Grand Tour, which became popular at the time, as well as provided a basis for British collectors to get interested in art, as he attempted to objectively rank the quality of paintings on a scale of 0-18. It is hard to imagine such a practice being embraced today, but at the time, Richardson’s approach helped to engage the British middle-class in art by providing a method for asserting one’s taste.

Art criticism was thus born, and a popularised method for judging the quality of art was thus established.

French enlightenment writer Dennis Diderot later contributed greatly to the language of art criticism with his reports on the salons in Paris between 1759-1781. Diderot’s contributions were published in the newsletter La Correspondance primarily for the European elite, which greatly appreciated his new ways of describing art. Because his readership consisted of a smaller and more exclusive group, Diderot was able to write more freely and avoid strict censorship. With Diderot, a new generation of writers flourished who sought to make a living of art criticism and writing.

Art criticism became a profession and free expression became an essential part of the style of writing.

In the 19^th century, Victorian writer John Ruskin made a name for himself when he famously defended William Turner in his Modern Painters (1843). Ruskin brought forth romantic theory and scientific analysis to prove Turner’s critics wrong. However, an artist who received less praise and appreciation from Ruskin was J.M. Whistler. Ruskin allegedly published a letter in 1877 wherein he bashed Whistler’s work Nocturne in Black and Gold in harsh terms, for lacking a moral and didactic purpose. Whistler sued Ruskin for libel and actually won the case, but went bankrupt after the case ended. To make things worse, during the trial the Nocturne painting was apparently brought into the courtroom upside down and was further ridiculed in the press. Professionally, they both suffered from that court case.

Art criticism became a way of justifying style and expression in support of the artists. What Ruskin brought to the table was really the use of theory and scientific analysis, which became great compliments to art assessment. Ironically, Ruskin also demonstrates the damaging effect of bias in criticism, as some historians speculate on Ruskin and Whistler’s differences in political ideology as an explanation for the quarrel between them.

Across the English Channel, French poet Charles Baudelaire had found new ways of critiquing and writing about art in his The Salon of 1845 and 1846 publications. According to Baudelaire, art criticism and writing should be passionate, partial, political, and addressed to the majority – in this context, the middle-class. He urged that criticism should be formed from an exclusive point of view, but in a way that would open up the greatest number of horizons. As was the common practice at the time, Baudelaire would walk through the large salon exhibitions while jotting down phrases or pages of notes for each artist. Like Ruskin, Baudelaire was a product of Romanticism. The late 19^th century was a turning point for increased urbanisation. Baudelaire’s views on Romanticism as an expression of pure individuality and emotionality were challenged by the push for a more modern subject matter, thereby paving the way for a new direction in art, towards Realism.

Art criticism became a medium for engaging the wider audience in art, as well as for providing valuable feedback to artists, in other words art criticism had two audiences: the public and the artists. Art criticism also helped predicting the direction of art by tracing trends in society and painting styles.

In the early 20^th century art was changing rapidly, with new movements shooting up like mushrooms, so art criticism had to keep up. Bloomsbury Group-member and English writer Roger Fry gained a reputation for his expertise on the Old Masters. However, Fry became an advocate for the new developments in French art, which he famously dubbed as Post-Impressionism. He was fascinated by the trends in modern art, and vigorously defended art based on pure imagination; as opposed to earlier art directions attempting to capture the real and natural. He supported the thoughts of Formalism, which argued that, the most central quality of art is its form, rather than the conventional subject matter. According to Fry, the value of art should therefore be judged on its ability to produce a distinctive aesthetic experience, with the experience representing a so-called aesthetic emotion.

Art criticism not only helped to justify individual artists’ works, but also helped open up whole new movements and new ways of perceiving art.

Mid 20^th century art was helped along with critics such as Polish-Italian writer Guillaume Apollinaire and Argentine writer Rafael Squirru, who saw a reoccurrence of the poet-as-critic (like Baudelaire). Apollinaire’s literary contribution helped in defining the aesthetic principles of Cubism as well as of Surrealism, while Squirru contributed greatly to promote Latin American art through the decades. In the US, writers such as Clement Greenberg wrote critical essays published in Art and Culture (1961), and helped create awareness of the emerging American art, particularly in praising Abstract Expressionists Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Barnett Newman and others in that group.

Art criticism became a channel for representing art in the otherwise marginalised areas of the art world, and basically helped widen the reach of art documentation.

In 1949 the International Association of Art Critics (AICA) was established as an affiliate of UNESCO in order to revitalise critical discourse, which had suffered from fascism throughout the 1930s and 40s. AICA was established to preserve the vocation of art criticism, as well as to analyse its responsibility to artists and the public. According to AICA, its defined objectives included promoting art criticism as a discipline and defending impartial freedom of expression and thought.

Art criticism as a global network was thus established by forming its own international association. AICA became a support system and a forum for art critics to understand their responsibility, as well as to revitalise the profession.

In the 1970s, Feminist art criticism came naturally with the general feminist movement. A new direction of criticism emerged emphasising the under-representation of women in art. American writer Linda Nochlin’s essay Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? (1971) paved the way for new discussions on the issue. Nochlin brought up issues of societal barriers preventing women from pursuing careers in art. She also criticised previous perspectives on Orientalism for their often erotic or violent themes as reflections of the early 19^th century attitudes of chauvinism and misogyny in France.

Art criticism opened up the doors for more inclusivity by questioning previous attitudes in art practice. Despite the refinement of art theories over previous centuries, a critical re-evaluation of fair representation in art history was raised with Feminist art criticism.

Art criticism today – artworks and art-words

This is the part that really intrigues me, the role of art criticism today. Based on the lessons from the above historical walk-through, some aspects of the evolution of art criticism still seem valid today. The audience can be differentiated between two branches; the public and the artists. Different types of art writings seem to serve different purposes – academic art criticism for scientific study and assessment, and popular art criticism for a wider audience. And then, there are the aspects of personal judgement, fairness, and partiality. So, with that in mind, what makes a good critic?

Photo: Harland Miller’s *Tonight we make history*, Blain & Southern Gallery Berlin, 2016

Gilda Williams’ practical handbook How To Write About Contemporary Art (2014) discusses certain principles worth considering for art critics. According to Williams, art critics lose their credibility if the writing comes off sloppy or somehow marked by favouritism. As a minimum, the critic should disclose any partiality, whether it is writing about a friend, relative, colleague, or the critic’s previous relationship with a given institution or venue. Furthermore, Williams warns readers about seemingly objective art writings from commercial material, such as catalogues from auction houses, galleries, or private collections. However, Williams does note that the traditional image of the art critic as an impartial, incorruptible, and fully independent art explorer is merely a popular myth. Today’s art critic must take upon many roles (researcher, blogger, editor, curator etc.) in order to respond to the demands of art writing, and must master several formats of writing (journal-writing, market news, interviews, academic theory etc.).

Eleni Gemtou, art scholar at the University of Athens, in her Subjectivity in Art History and Art Criticism (2010) points out the overlapping roles of art historians and critics in terms of analysis, comprehension, interpretation, and evaluation. However, Gemtou characterises the art historian as a person taking a more scientific and objective approach to art, while the critic should balance subjectivity with acknowledged artistic values equally. One role complements the other, as the historian lays the foundation for essential evaluation by the critic.

Challenges of art criticism today

It is notable that, as art or painting has been declared dead over and over again (as in the cases such as Paul Delaroche (1839), Marcel Duchamp (1912), and Donald Judd (1976)), art criticism too, has also been declared dead several times. To understand that claim, we would have to investigate the reasoning behind it.

Photo: *Carl Andre: Sculpture as Place, 1958–2010*, Hamburger Bahnhof Berlin, 2016

Art critic James Elkin’s Art Criticism: Writing Without Readers (2003) raises interesting points by arguing that art criticism is in a worldwide crisis. According to Elkin, the world is experiencing an increasing number of writers, but a decreasing number of them contributing to intellectual debates. Elkin argues that the overproduction of art writings is merely used as a selling point in catalogues of commercial galleries, while relevant articles are drowning in a vast selection of art magazines and online media. Ultimately, this means that, art criticism has reached a point where no one takes it seriously, or even bothers to read it.

In the interview On Time And Spaces For Criticism: An Interview With Thijs Lijster (2015) by Spanish artist-writer Anna Dot, the question “where is art criticism?” rather than “what is art criticism?” is raised. Lijster argues for changing the focus to “where”, as the displacement of criticism has found new channels such as new media, institutions, and professional writings. He points out that, even if we consider traditional art criticism as having a hard time, it does not mean art criticism has ended. The threat to traditional art criticism is connected with how it is bound by time and space. For Lijster, there is a looming threat of art becoming generic, as the borders of history and territory become blurrier. He also describes how the two branches of art criticism are facing challenges, in the sense that, academic art criticism suffers under cutbacks in universities, and popular art criticism suffers under decreased readership.

On the online show Tea At The Beatrice with Glenn O’Brien (June 2016), Glenn O’Brien meets fellow art critic Jerry Salz. In this cosy, slightly dissatisfied-with-everything, but openhearted conversation between the two seasoned art critics O’Brien and Salz, the audience gets valuable insights into the current state of art criticism. They pick up issues such as how one of the largest art magazines, ArtForum, hardly publishes any actual criticism anymore, and the importance of using of plain language in art writing. What is interesting in this conversation is how criticism seems to have been replaced by the art media’s interest in attracting advertisement revenue. Salz mentions the fear of retaliation against art critics from the galleries and institutions if they write bad reviews. However, Salz emphasises that the size of the venue matters, as negative criticism could have devastating impacts on small venues. In his words: “to take a sledgehammer to a small place”. He further argues that art criticism is generally about respect, and you are respecting the art by allowing criticism to play a role. Across the table, O’Brien expresses the state of art criticism with: “I think it is over, because you can’t write a bad review”. They further discuss the issue of art critics collecting art. When asked, O’Brien openly admits he has been buying artworks as he discovered artists, arguing he’s an advocate for the arts rather than a critic. Salz, on the other hand, states that any artwork he and his wife Roberta Smith (also a celebrated art critic) have ever received has been sent back, except works given by close friends.

It is valuable to hear these thoughts and arguments from art critics on the state of art criticism today. There seems to be a consensus that the traditional art critic is no more, but the role has branched out to several fields within art. Platforms for general publications have changed along with critical writings and the readership. This could answer my personal question as to why I no longer see and read any current reviews. They are surely there, but as a reader you’ll have to become a researcher too. So, I sense that, there is a demand for accessibility and sorting out relevant information.

The potential of art criticism today

I find it hard to believe that art criticism is really dying, or is dead, for that matter. Although, as I mentioned in the introduction, I probably fall under the category of people who do not bother to read art reviews. It is definitely not for the lack of interest, but I think that, my personal attitude towards reviews is more linked to a personal relationship to art. My experience of art is a personal thing. I love making the discoveries and assessments on my own. Another valid point, as mentioned by experienced writers on art (O’Brien, Salz, Williams etc.), there seem to be a general problem with the language in current art writings, which probably goes with the commercial demand for art writings (but not criticism).

Photo: Frank Holliday, Partners & Mucciaccia Singapore, 2015

It is hard to disagree with the idea that, the 19^th century critic roaming the salons of Paris is no longer among us. If that is what the critics mean by the traditional art critic is dead. I am completely fine with that; it still holds value in a historical context. But I think art criticism offers much more than the personal judgment of shows or artworks, as it provides valuable documentation in itself.

The “make or break” factor of art criticism is interesting though. Salz’s comment: “to take a sledgehammer to a small place”, not only applies to small venues, but to small art scenes as well. Feedback is invaluable at any stage of development, but hammering on something before it gets a change to flourish, is dangerous too. It is a balance worth considering.

I understand the critics’ desire to retain the integrity of professional art criticism. I understand that professional art critics want to maintain both, the principles of “good writing”, as well as that of professional relationships with other art professionals.

In the broadest sense of art writing, anyone can be an art writer. There are countless art events taking place all over the world, and art criticism should play a role in this. For small art scenes, there has to be room for assessment and feedback for the benefit of the public and the artists. In worst cases, we will see developing art scenes with only positive marketing materials available. Catalogues and commercial writings are fine, for they provide the public with general information and they also play a part in documenting events for future use. But one could argue that, good art scenes need good art critics, and for that to sustain, art criticism essentially needs credibility, impartiality, and passion.

Finally, I think we should be careful with the term art world when we are actually talking about the art scene in a country, or even just a particular city. The practices and the level of development are so different across continents and cultures that, it would be a shame to assume we are all facing the same challenges, and thereby try to apply the same solutions.

I absolutely see a value in art criticism for both big and small art scenes today. I believe it should play a role in educating the audience, documenting art events, as well as giving access to art scenes we probably would not be able to reach.

Art Scenes and their mechanism

Art scenes may be considered exciting places to experience art or to be seen as an artist, but the term art scene is often being used quite liberally (by myself included). But having a workable definition of art scenes can actually be quite useful in understanding the mechanisms of art, art activity, and the stage on which it unfolds.

I picked up this topic because I wanted to write about my personal experiences of various art scenes, but I made a fatal error, I assumed that we all have the same understanding of what art scenes are. Furthermore, it seems to me there are many different uses and definitions of the term art scene, so I’ve read up on a few interesting perspectives to add on to my own perception of the term.

In this article I deal with art scenes in terms of the art activity in a specific location, and try to map out some of the key art participants. By defining the mechanisms of art scenes I’ll try to compare the art scenes of two very different cities (Paris and Manila) in order to understand their function and difference.

Perspectives: art scene as a polyseme

The term art scene can be considered a polyseme, in the sense that it has multiple meanings depending on who uses it. For example, an artist might use the term to map out where to be seen, an art historian or curator might use it to track art styles, trends, or movements, and a gallerist might use it in terms of positioning art sales. They might all be referring to the same scene, so what are art scenes?

As nicely described by the two philosophy scholars Josef Kovalčik and Max Ryynänen (2018), art scenes are commonly considered places from which artists and their works are associated, but could also be used to describe an environment an artist has “spun out of”. This is exemplified by artists such as Picasso being Spanish-born but making a name in the Paris art scene, or Marina Abramovic being a product of the experimental Balkan art scene. Thereby, we associate artists to certain art scenes with the belief that the art scene has played an important role in their work. According to Kovalčik and Ryynänen, the possibilities and limitations of certain art scenes are influenced by many factors such as political control, aesthetics, and the existence of an audience for the works. They also discuss the aspect of artists from peripheral areas (in terms of low art activity or no existing art scene) moving to central art scenes where “things are happening”. This aspect often plays a key part in artist’s biographies, where the artist’s roots are described as well as what happened when she/he moved to a particular city?

Kovalčik and Ryynänen also list the participants of art scenes such as the artists, curators, gallerists, critics, mediators, museum professionals, and collectors, where if often occurs that individuals have several roles. They argue that all the participants are somewhat conscious of each other. Higher cultural institutions and galleries are often aware of grass-root spaces and activities, and are sometimes referred to as scenes themselves (e.g. the museum scene, grass-root scene etc.). These scenes, based on geography, make up a network where works and thoughts are shared inside a system.

Another interesting perspective on art scenes is described in the essay The Logic of Scenes by artist and writer David Burrow published in Deleuze and Contemporary Art (2010). Particularly, Burrow describes a perspective on the European avant-garde and its focus on communal experimentation, and how the European avant-garde opened up the potential of matter, bodies, and groups. The interesting here is how the avant-garde artworks brought forth new arrangements of life and practices. The logic of scenes advocates that artworks, writings, performances etc. along with the actions and declarations by individuals and groups play an important role in these new arrangements, and could push for new orientations. It further describes how art both emerges out of a scene and helps produce a scene. Art scenes in this definition are coined as “a distribution of presentations” wherein the art activity is marked by encounters and articulations. Art scenes are here not defined as professional networks, but rather informal presentations of events, and differ from formal organisations of art. They are shaped by their local and specific nature, they have no specific size, nor do they have a specific duration (Zepke et al. 2010; Burrows: 157-176).

What I take from the definitions by Burrow, Kovalčik, and Ryynänen, is the sense of association and communal component of art scenes. Art scenes have the dual quality of being formed by artists as well as nurturing artists, and this creates a network for art professionals. Being associated with an art scene can be used as a tool to promote art, but it can also be used in finding a scene “out there” that fits your interest, whether you’re an art professional or an art explorer. So with that in mind, we can also distinguish between informal and formal art scenes, depending on their uses by the art participants.

My take on art scenes

As mentioned, I’ve been personally using the term art scene to determine art activity in a particular location. Practically I’ve been using the term in my efforts to explore and identify which art activities are going on where, and who’s involved? Furthermore, I’ve been using it to identify what does the art activity say about the specific location at which it takes place. In other words, I’ve been using art scenes as an identifier for art activity anchored to a local culture of a place.

In my experience there are three general elements that play a key part in defining the practices within art scenes, namely tradition, convention, and resources.

Traditions matter in terms of how things have been done in the past. Every tradition was at one point invented, which I think we tend to forget. Traditions are created out of needs at a certain point in time, and are continued either because the need continues to exist or because the tradition has become a habit.

Conventions matter in terms of how things are done now. It’s more immediate. It’s relevant in terms of how we are addressing problems or challenges now, and in terms of what is perceived best practice.

Resources matter in terms of local cultural policies, how are things financed, how social capital among participants is strengthened, what resources are physically available, and of course the utilisation and keeping of knowledge.

A comparison of two art scenes: Paris and Manila

Photo: outside Louvre Pyramid Paris, 2014

Considering Paris and Manila, two very different art scenes and cultures. I have lived, studied, or worked in both cities, and it’s amazing to experience the different dynamics between the two. It’s important to note, that this comparison is not a scoreboard of which scene is better than the other. That wouldn’t make any sense and I have no interest in doing that. The emphasis is really on the practices, and what the different dynamics are.

Considering Paris, a city with a long tradition of art schools, public and private museums, established districts of art galleries, known artist collectives, annual art fairs, and regularly operating auction houses. The art scene in Paris consists of a strong support system of art professionals such as trained artists, educated curators and historians, art writers, experienced venue managers, and cultural policy makers who are voicing how to change conventions to keep up with time, e.g. the challenges of art sales moving to online platforms, new tax policies for art stored in tax havens, repatriation of looted art, or whatever else the topic might be.

Paris has developed its art scene through traditions of doing things, e.g. artists get educated at art schools, the art is exhibited in galleries and maybe later in larger venues once the artist has been acknowledge by the art community, the artist gets commissioned by local governments to do bigger works, and so on.

Paris might also have to change its conventions to deal with current challenges, e.g. museums having to find new ways of attracting crowds as young people are loosing interest, the lax regulation on art sale means many artists are missing out on their compensation from the droit de suite (art resale right) etc.

Finally, the city’s resources are unfortunately not constant. Resources have to be observed and maintained. If a city wishes to finance a vibrant and attractive cultural scene, then these expenses will have to come from somewhere. Knowledge as a resource also requires maintenance, such as passing on valuable know-how before it’s lost.

Then if we look at Manila. A top 10 city among the world’s most densely populated cities pr. square kilometre, and approximately twice has densely populated as Paris. However, the population is much younger. Median age in France is 41,7 and the Philippines 25,7 (2020). I would argue this difference matters. Less space and younger people does change the culture and dynamic of a city.

Manila also have a younger tradition of art schools, a few public and private museums, no dedicated districts of art galleries but rather clusters of a couple of fine art galleries, few formal art collectives, a few annual art fairs, and occasional art auctions.

Manila doesn’t have as long a tradition of established practices (major revolutions haven’t made it easier to establish continuity though), but I would argue there is a stronger sense of freedom on how to go about things (can be both good and bad). The freedom of not being tied to traditional practices makes Manila a scene that constantly has to change its conventions, a carte blanche if you will. A way of looking at it is, this gives the city a unique position to adapt to best practices of establishing well-managed institutions, programming art education, funding art projects etc. For example, I find it interesting that the Philippines doesn’t have an actual Ministry of Culture (at least as of now 2020), and the current governing body for culture and arts commissioning NCCA (National Commission for Culture and the Arts) was established as late as 1992. Keyword again: young!

Manila is certainly a place where you can talk about scenes within a scene. The gallery scene is fairly new, yet growing every year. The art hub scene is so booming, that I can’t even keep up. The art crowd and participants might predominantly be young (my assumption), but people are curious and eager to try things out. I feel there’s an urge among art participants to be relevant and to be represented in the art world, and why wouldn’t you applaud this drive.

Traditions of practice can be useful in terms of planning and supporting the arts, but it’s not vital for the existence of an art scene. The challenges attached to conventions and resources are a different matter, and they will always need to be updated regardless of traditions.

Staging art

So, if we accept the premise that art participants make up the art scene, each with their different role to play, the art scene becomes a stage for multiple-purpose interactions. Multiple-purpose in the sense that the participants utilise art scenes for different purposes. Artists might use the art scene to gain exposure and sell art to make a living. Curators might use it to nurture their network or gather inspiration and ideas for exhibits. Venue managers might use the scene to find artists and curators to collaborate with, or gather information on prices of artworks. A bit simplified, but it’s just to say that art scenes can be considered stages where these art participants meet and form networks.

Another important factor in staging art is of course the tool of media. Media in its broadest sense is a way of channeling art activity to an audience, a way of learning, a way of gaining exposure as an artist, but not to forget that media can also influence and colour people’s opinion.

In order to gain exposure, artists will have to engage in some sort of media activity, or even better, have some else manage it for them. Art scenes will probably be there regardless of media interaction, but media does help in creating awareness of particular art scene.

In my opinion, nothing can really replace first-hand experiences of art, whether we talk about art works or art scenes. Ideally you’ll physically go out and experience art in person, but of course you can’t be everywhere all the time, and media channels (whether its TV, social media, art magazines etc.) are great ways to learn what’s going on in the world.

For further reading

Kovalčik J. & Ryynänen M., “The Art Scenes.” Published in journal Contemporary Aesthetics, Vol 16, 2018.
Burrow D. “An Art Scene as Big as the Ritz: The Logic of Scenes”, published in Zepke S. et al., Deleuze and Contemporary Art, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2010.

Tag: Art theory