On the Role of Art Critics and Art Historians

The role of these individuals I find to complicated. On one hand, I see "doers," that is artists, as better guides than art critics. Frequently, an art critic uses words that seem inadequate, too adequate, or just simply wrong. Their arguments can be equally perplexing and mysterious. They do have the ability to "make or break a career" (my skin crawls at that (1) actually happening (2) actually having to be a concern), and though they have a great knowledge of artists, oftentimes they are foreign to the methods of labor involved (many exceptions of course! Some actually have an art making background!). Their role seems to ride completely on an overinflated art market. Once more, Duchamp and Warhol--you know, artists--appear as the prime contributers to art theory, as opposed to art critics. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Yet at the same time, where would we be without them? Sometimes they analyze insightfully and as a result give back to an art community. It allows art to be judged (a tricky endeavor) academically. Being raised by academics, I do not reject or fear the idea of academia and art interacting, so I find this to be most beneficial.

The relationship between art historians and art critics will reveal itself more fully with time, and I unfortunately cannot fully describe this interaction. Initially it appears art historians perpetuate what art critics say, but this is not the case as seen with Joseph Beuys, art from Byzantium, Pollock, David Salle and others.

Yet the critic (and historian somewhat) act as mediators between artist (or art rather) and viewer/participant. Why the mediator? In a discussion led by Linda Weintraub, who wrote In The Making (starring many artists including Takashi Murakami no less), she claimed to take this stance because of "disgruntled watchers in a gallery" (3/4/2007).

Now I would like to fight in Linda's behalf before (what will seem like me) attacking her. She writes very consciously of artists and how they want to be represented. She always sends her writing to the artists she is covering. She wants their validation--that indeed, the presentation of them (the artists) is appropriate. Quite admirable and she generally writes to artists as opposed to art historians, art critics or art collectors. An amazon review attacks her because of her weak critical analysis of the work. Yet, I find such "plain" texts a relief when opinions are so easy to come by. It allows the ready to reject or accept or whatever the work. I appreciate such efforts and find them quintessential to the art book market: let people decide for themselves.

However, she ignores a crucial fact with her "disgruntled watchers in a gallery." That crucial fact is that they are in a gallery--which is the supposedly neutral territory (thank you Rachel, www.statetheproblem.blogspot.com) which is in fact not neutral and is completely "artificial" (for lack of a better word). In short, the gallery is already a mediator. That could be the problem. If we were to see the art piece in a public space or in the artist's studio (in my opinion, the prime location to look at the work, perhaps the only place to look at the work properly). So an art critic then is the mediator that works inside the mediator of the gallery to relay information from the art/ist to the viewer/participant.

To end on a personal statement, when I work I acknowledge the realm or situation in which my art is displayed or is meant to be displayed (inside the gallery--the white cube). I work from that position of the white cube/the gallery/the space the piece will exist in. I see it as the only way to take the whole picture into account. In short, what I mean to say is that some work is not only intended for display in a gallery but takes the gallery as an idea, as a canvas into consideration in order to make it a valid, true, honest way to view the work. This would be less true of an outsider artist, whose work was made (approximately) without the consideration of the gallery/museum/the white box. To see that work in the atmosphere of a gallery is, to me, not to see the work much at all. That itself is a huge hurtle. The gallery is just one of many frameworks from which we see art (or in other words, context is important in any given situation).