Does Art Criticism in Baltimore ALWAYS have to be NICE?
I just finished reading the citypaper’s extensive coverage of the six Sondheim finalists. Read it yourself here: http://citypaper.com/news/state-of-the-art-1.1341581. Every year the team at CP does an excellent synopsis of the finalists, and hires not one critic, but a whole crew, just to be extra thorough. I definitely learned more about each artist by reading this piece and I feel as though I have a better understanding of the work on display. This is no small feat.
There, I said something positive. Now I am going to complain, although I hope my art critic friends at CP know I am not complaining about their work. I’m not. I’m complaining in general, about my own contributions to this, too, about the overal high level of NICENESS present in local art criticism. There aren’t a whole lot of us here doing this work and we don’t get paid much, so PLEASE don’t take what I am saying personally, arts writers. (SEE? Niceness. Ugh. It’s everywhere…)
If I am honest, I have to say I felt disappointed in the level of criticality expressed in these reviews. I’m not advocating that critics be mean for the sake of meanness, however, these six finalists are in the hot seat. They are all contenders for $30 large. Shouldn’t they suffer a little bit? I mean this in a completely collegial way.
These folks are tough, intelligent, professional artists. They’re grown-ups. I think they can handle it. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, which will be evaluated by the judges this Saturday, and, let’s be honest, the scrutiny is at its highest in whispers from their artist peers. We all see certain strengths, many which were noted in these reviews, but we see the weaknesses, too.
Sometimes in Baltimore, there’s a sense of ‘the emperor’s new clothes’ when writing about art. In order to avoid feeling hypocritical, I typicaly choose to only write about artwork I feel positive about and ignore the rest. But is this kidd glove approach doing anyone any good? Is pissing off an artist the worse thing in the world?
Last night, I had an interesting conversation at the Another Roadside Attraction opening with Jeremy Crawford. I have known this artist for several years and we were having a conversation about writing art criticism. He caught me off guard, when he mentioned a not-exactly-scathing, but critical review I wrote about The Man Show for BmoreArt, a show he put together at Flux Gallery. I had completely forgotten about writing this review – it was several years ago, but he remembered it very clearly.
He admitted his initial reaction to my opinions was offense. He took it personally and who the hell was this b**** to criticize his labor? But now that we’ve known each other for a while, it’s water under the bridge. Whether he took any of my gripes to heart is impossible to know, but my point is that he remembered the review. It was memorable because it was uncomfortably critical. I guess what I’m wondering is if this is a bad thing? And if the artists around here were forced to grow thicker skin and were faced with the possibility of the gloves coming off, critically speaking, could this make their work stronger in the future?
Are art reivews even interesting to read (by anyone besides the artist themselves) if there is no possiblity of some scolding or drama? Do art critics here owe it to artists to provide constructive, critical feedback that goes beyond being descriptive and nice? Sometimes the truth hurts and this is how we learn. Do we want art critics to be tougher and completely honest or is it better for everyone to be nice?
These questions are not rehetorical. I would like to hear from readers on this. I check my google analytics – there are 400 – 800 of you a day. I have no clue who you are, but you are out there. And I know you have no shortage of opinions.
13 Comments → “Does Art Criticism in Baltimore ALWAYS have to be NICE?”
New Publication from the Walters Art Museum
Maybe these reviews weren’t very mean, but the CP was obvious in their choice for the prize. Lisa Dillin is on the cover. Does this kind of publicity influence the judges? Is this fair to all the applicants?
Part of the problem is an all around conflict of interest. Baltimore is small and so many art writers have other roles, too, as artists and curators and gallery owners.
For example, Cara is an artist and she is also an art writer or critic or whatever. How can you be completely honest or criticial if you’re personally involved in the scene as an artist, too? How can you criticize others if, say, you might make enemies which will hinder your chances of showing as a artist in the future? Along those lines, how much is a review worth, if it comes from someone with a vested interest in their own success, who might be in competition with their subject?
It’s a sticky situation. But until art writers make enough $$ to do that and only that, what options are there?
Overall, I gave-up reading many exhibition reviews a number of years ago for the very fact that it was either the same 12 people being reviewed (very politely) or a scathing review about how the artwork didn’t fit into the so-called “Greater Baltimore Aesthetic.”
If one doesn’t teach in Baltimore, graduate from the Institute, or live in a warehouse without plumbing, it’s increasingly difficult to exhibit one’s work in a serious and respected manner in this town. And the majority of art reviews (from online and print sources) over a long period of time have upheld this mentality.
As a whole, art criticism tends to minimize critical thinking- telling people, many of whom are intelligent artists, art historians, and art-lovers, that their opinions and tastes are wrong. In a city Baltimore’s size, I think that art reviews and writings should help promote the arts culture and community in a way that is supportive and enthusiastic.
This is why I enjoyed this year’s CP review. It was a thoughtful discussion on each artist and his or her work in the exhibition. It left much of it’s criticism and praise to the viewer, enticing us to go to the exhibition and make up our own mind.
This city’s art’s community and power structure has serious problems, many of which Bret McCabe briefly touches on in his response, and discussing them might seem heretical to the rank and file. “Nice” art criticism isn’t one of them.
Thank you for asking this, I thought the same thing after I read the piece in the CP. I think descriptive pieces are a waste of time. No one criticizes anything anymore-Boring!I don’t even bother reading arts writing in Baltimore anymore, I just skim, and I used to love reading all the arts reviews. The last couple of years have just offered more and more limp descriptions and profiles. Yawn.
Everyone is too connected.
I think this discussion is vapid.
Cara I love that you’ve started this discussion. I think that in general, the “emperors new clothes” approach isn’t actually ALL bad, when related to everyday art openings. There’s such an abundance of event news in our lives, being broadcast in our faces on facebook, in email, on posters around the city – that I find it more helpful to hear positive word from legit, trustable sources such as yourself and other local arts writers- reviewing and thus passing on the word about ONLY shows you think are worth seeing. It helps me decide what I’m doing on the weekens, and helps boost more worthwhile shows to higher turnout! Why NOT just ignore the weaker shows of this genre? (Aside from the fact that following this tactic as a NON-writer puts you alone as writers in charge of viewing EVERY show for us ahead of time, and allowing you the powerful last word in what Baltimore shows are relevant, I suppose)?
But when you’re talking about shows that garner EVERYONE’s attention in the art community, you can hardly just ignore and choose not to report anything on the work. In this case, it’s our duty as audience members, (not just limited to arts writers) to criticize constructively, and help shape the direction of future competitions of prestigious (if only locally) and invaluable resources like the Sondheim and Baker.
The main thing is: As artists, we rely on local critics to pass word on about our shows existing at all. Even negative criticism lets people know we exist! Bring it on!
“nice” is pointless.
no one learns anything. simply describing things which need to be experienced in real life might be useful if the work is in a city one can’t travel to visit. real criticism fits things into context of life, history, art history, and the artist’s intentions. it should see not just look.
Baltimore IS a tiny community. Everyone knows each other, or went to school together. I think its hard to criticize your peers, and especially your friends. When so many art critics are artists themselves, I think its easy to understand why reviews are often so “nice”. I imagine its difficult for critics to separate personal from professional.
A critic who deeply engages with art can have a far greater impact on an art scene and art town than one who throws her/his opinion around. We all have opinions, but what a writer has is a talent for opening us up to new thoughts and new imaginings about art. Challenging my understanding of art, and my imagination, challenges me to make better art.
Maybe it’s really a matter of venue and audience. We don’t need to rely on ad-driven media to deliver sharp art criticism in this city. And really – it may not be what the readers of these publications are interested in.
We absolutely have the talent in this community to maintain intelligent dialogue about what we see and hear. If we want that, we just need to make it. A blog – open registration, no anonymous posts. Maybe no editor(but will need an admin). Free exchange of opinions without the thorny politics? It might be interesting to see what a bit of “Wild West” lawless expression scares up…
Ultimately, it might come down to a question of venue and audience. We don’t have to rely on ad-driven media for our local art criticism. And perhaps, the readers of these outlets don’t really want that anyway.
This city absolutely has the talent to maintain a serious conversation about what we make, see and hear. We just need to create the forum. A blog: open registration, no anonymous posts, maybe no editor (but will need an admin). It might be nice to see what some “Wild West” lawless opinion-raking could stir up…
If we only write about those works that we find valuable, aren’t we already engaging in “gloves off” criticism. Looking back on school critiques, can anyone remember a harsher review than silence? Even scathing words indicate some level of interest in art. For some time, simply being ignored was the critique, and, I hope, a motivating force to improve.
For some time, only a few people wrote about art in Baltimore. When that was the case, I think that the “nice” approach made some sense and worked well. But, it really only provided for 2 options: being critiqued by being ignored, or receiving some positive feedback. We might now have enough room for more variety. As there are now several publications dedicated to arts and culture in Baltimore, could we also provide mixed reviews, negative reviews, as well as accolades?
Just because you like something doesn’t mean it is perfect and that also doesn’t mean you have to pick something apart to get to critical discourse. In a city this small with limited opportunities and most of those controlled by other artists in a peer group-it can be tricky to be honest. It is also disheartening to read reviews that namedrop the writer’s friends/associates for their press sheets. I used to enjoy Peter Boyce’s writing since he was a bit removed.