From a previous blog however, I also note that critics, reviewers, even artists who self promote oh so well, should work to get their voices into the mainstream more, and not the “art circle” who look (a bit of gossip, some bag in the box wine and moldy cheese) and don’t buy…well, usually. Due to being usually read by the “circle” – is that where the carefulness comes from? Also, as Erik Wannamaker(i’m not going back to find or reread that to find his name – so severe apologies if i’m not remembering it even closely)mentioned in his article the other day… people seem to be “careful” here in Chicago. In a previous long life of non-art, I’ve noticed a reticence in life long mid-westerners in certain areas – criticism and negotiation.. it was of interest to have someone comment on that in the art sense.

Seriously though, a strive to get the word out and or educate to pre and emerged collectors needs to be aggressively sought more.

In that fashion, working hard to enrich the growth of pre to emerged “collectors” and all the wannabes looking for something that will go with their tangerine couch, will benefit, the artists, professionally and economically, which in turn benefits all the various venues of selling their art.

Failing that and talking in the circle only seems to be pious, kinda like a Baptist preacher calling a flock.

Thanks for chiming in, and all the fine writing.

I will just add, for the fun of it, that being a critic “happens”. I’m studying the New Art Examiner for an anthology and the old issues say “Jerry Saltz- Painter”

For most of us, this is not a first choice. I certainly got dragged in as I really didn’t like reading (most) reviews in the first place. But the writer/critic pool is smaller than the artist cattle call, and the success and response can drag you in.

I would make art and when the show ended I was back at 0, starting again. But with art commentary, opportunites bred more opportunities – it was hard to choose going nowhere doing something I loved than going somewhere with something I loved less.

I say this not just for myself, but Duncan MacKenzie too, who is a practicing artist but is much more widely known for his work at BaS. There are other examples as well.

“I’m not a superhero anymore, we quit, I’m retired!”
“Ahhh, yet here we are”

- Conversation with the superhero costume fashion designer, from the film, The Incredibles

I consider the ongoing process of aggressively viewing and learning from and writing about other people’s artwork as a boon to my own artwork. If I didn’t believe that, I’d gladly stay in my studio on Friday nights. Writing Chicago Art Review forces me to go see work, to talk to artists or curators, to do contextual research, and most importantly forces me to critically think about contemporary work. I know myself well enough to know that I wouldn’t burn free time seeing new shows if I weren’t engaged in writing about them, so I do so so I will do so.

As an artist writing criticism, ultimately writing what I write as a means of self-education, I also publish what I write as a means of self promotion. I am my only advertiser, and I like it that way. I should say that I’m really glad that I can achieve these goals with a product that other people seem to enjoy, and I do hope that people can use Chicago Art Review as a way to benefit from the research I do, and that I add something to the fun of being an artist and curator in Chicago. Still, my goals as an artist writing criticism are fundamentally different than those of a writer writing criticism.

One tale I always re-tell is the story of Lee Bontecou saying she had no idea what any of the critics are talking about. So much criticism makes assumptions about the artist intentions, and these assumptions are, in truth, guesses. And only artists know how wrong it is, in some cases. But with the traditional power struggle, would an artist dare to challenge a critic of their work? Of course not, it is biting the hand that feeds, so artist have stood quietly by.

As for bad reviews, we did break our own rule with the Roots and Culture show, but I think the issue with that show, for that critic, pointed to larger cultural issues and trends in the art world. I recently read a review about a show at the Tate that’s being called “the racist show” and .. well, it’s kind of .. well, I won’t get into it here, soe art provokes a need for public outcry. And what I also don’t like, that we saw in that show, was a new breed of (what I call) bullet-proof essays, which are essays designed to fend off criticism by the audience, it tells them how they are NOT allowed to interpret the work.

So I think there are trends worth calling out, but yes, with 300 events going on at all times and the possibilities of covering maybe 3 a week … yes.. why bother, with a pan. I see bad shows all the time and just ignore them.

I also think artist have an eye not just for what the artist did wrong, but what an artist is trying to do. I am totally an art and writing doctor, I’m always looking at things they could do to fix the work. It’s just my pushy nature.

Last, I’ll also say that one thing artist bring to the table in their writing is that the process of creation can be very simple and intuitive. Whether writing or sculpting a fish (yes, I used to sculpt fish), like other artists, I have the moment where it just flows, I stop overthinking it and it happens. So to look at art and converting this understanding and this process to the audience can help create less elitist, less complicated, and more interesting art writing. Some critics, the writing is so over the top with artspeak, it’s like someone who’s trying to prove that their job is so skilled, it is something only they can do.

Kathryn