Image: rockstacker.com

Dear Young Artist,

You may have heard that Painting is Dead.

Blake Gopnik, chief art critic at the Washington Post, is well known for his belief that painting is dead. It’s an attention-getting statement that is brought up by an art critic every few years. Gopnik’s quote - from a talk he gave at the Corcoran Gallery in Washington in 2004, I believe, has been discussed, repeated and argued over in art blogs and interviews all over the internet. Many of his detractors, though, missed the context in which he spoke. He followed that claim by saying – and this is the crucial point for you, as a young artist – “There will always be talented artists who can overcome the difficulties that painting faces.”

Why do critics seem to pick on painting? After all, you never hear “Sculpture is dead.” Well, given painting’s long history, and the relatively recent fracturing of the artistic landscape – beginning with the invention of photography in the early 19th century, every so often, to a critic’s eye, it might seem reasonable to question painting’s dominance. But importantly, every time this happens, a painter comes along and revitalizes it. Picasso…

Pablo Picasso, Night Fishing at Antibes, 1939. Image: moma.org

Pollock…

Pollock at work. Image: jackson-pollock.com

Richter…

Gerhard Richter, Uncle Rudi, 2000. Image: museum.hu

and Luc Tuymans…

Luc Tuymans, Ceiling, 1992. Image: omkonst.com

are some examples of this. I think, for a young artist like yourself, it can be a lot of pressure, but, if you can manage to create a painting that is new, inspired and full of life, despite claims from all sides that painting is no longer relevant, then you are really onto something.

And THAT, I believe, is what you must keep in mind when you, as an artist, are thinking about your relationship to art critics. Peter Schjeldahl, the art critic for the New Yorker, sums it up this way: “when a work of art defeats all my best efforts to dismiss it, that’s when I go down on my knees and want to shout about it to everyone.” (Peter Schjeldahl, in discussion with historian Linda Nochlin, moderated by George Plimpton, New York Public Library, May 2002)

And Jerry Salz, the art critic for the Village Voice, puts it another way, comparing his job to that of a goalie, “someone who, in essence says, “It’s going to have to be pretty good to get by me.” (Jerry Saltz, “Learning on the Job,” Village Voice, Sept. 11, 2002)

And by the way, as I’m sure you know, and Jessica Stockholder has proved, painting needn’t be confined to a canvas:

Jessica Stockholder, Vortex in the Play of Theatre with Real Passion: In Memory of Kay Stockholder?, 2000. Image: pbs.org

Her installations embody the gesture, colour and vitality of painting. For me, they revitalize the idea of painting, they provide something that as a writer-slash-critic, I’m always looking for – I agree with the historian Linda Nochlin when she said that she cares more about whether contemporary art is interesting, than whether it is great. “I care whether it’s saying something new, whether it makes me think about art differently.” (Historian Linda Nochlin, in conversation with Peter Schjeldahl, moderated by George Plimpton, NYPL, May 2002)

To declare painting dead is a provocation – it is your job as an artist for your work to prove itself against critical attempts to dismiss it. Or, to put it another way, it is your job to make the viewer, whether critic or layperson, think about art differently.

My goal in this letter is to have you think about critics differently. Or, more precisely, to outline why critics are important, how they can help your career. First of all, I’m an art writer, and I’ve written positive and not so positive reviews. But, like most art writers, I absolutely love art. I admire and respect you tremendously for choosing what I think would be the most difficult job in the world. A good artist puts everything he has into his work. I believe that, and I love writing about work that excites me. My job is to put into language what you put your soul into. Both writing and art making are creative expressions from which the public benefits. Your creative expression from your personal point of view, and my creative expression from a broader, historical, cultural point of view. Art making and art writing respond to one another, benefit from one another. Good art makes for good criticism and vice versa.

You come to your work from an intensely personal perspective. Critics come to your work from a broader, and entirely different perspective. We see what you might not have considered. Linda Nochlin has said: “Painters don’t necessarily know more about what they’re doing than the rest of the world. I mean, they think they do, and they tell you what they’re doing, but that may not be what you and the rest of the public are getting out of the picture.” (Historian Linda Nochlin, in conversation with Peter Schjeldahl, moderated by George Plimpton, NYPL, May 2002)

How much impact do art critics have? If a critic writes a really positive review of your work, does that automatically mean that you will attract gallery representation? Not necessarily. The critic only recognizes great art that is already there. He or she doesn’t – or at least shouldn’t – deem mediocre art to be great. Think of it as a process of discovery.

Art Criticism Then
Since antiquity, philosophers like Plato and Aristotle have been theorizing about art but art criticism really came into its own in the Renaissance, with the Villani family “Chronicles” (1308-64). Criticism flourished in the 15th and 16th centuries, particularly when Giorgio Vasari wrote the first critical history of Italian Renaissance art, documenting the art’s development and establishing criteria for artistic value and a hierarchy of artists. (Encyclopaedia Britanica)

It was arguably in the 19th century that we began to have what we consider art criticism today, that is, the pursuit of a rational basis for art appreciation.

Art Criticism Now
These days, there is much discussion about art criticism’s relevance. As the art world has broadened, so has the critic’s role. The history of white, male painters has fractured into many more varied streams. What used to be an elitist endeavor has been opened up to a broad collecting public. There are many more artists, and thus galleries, than there were 30 years ago.

The rise of the ‘super collector’ like Charles Saatchi in London:

or Don and Mera Rubell in Miami:

has contributed to art market inflation, as many others follow suit in their thirst for hot young artists like yourselves. This demand by collectors has given commerical galleries considerable power. They look to cement their young artists in an international setting, by placing their work in museum, corporate and big-name private collections. Criticism is often a first step in this process, as collectors look to local critics for early approval of young artists. The right criticism can be instrumental in establishing a young artist’s career.

The problem with this situation is that art criticism has become muddied. Perhaps it’s because art is being marketed more aggressively than ever before. Many critics publish in art magazines, whose advertising dollars come from commerical galleries, who in turn expect positive reviews. Yes, art criticism has become muddied. How can a critic adequately assess an artwork when he or she is expected to provide a postitive review?

The art critic Raphael Rubenstien, writing about painting in Art in America in March 2003, noted the problems created when people and institutions, critics and artists forget the past. He believes in the importance of looking at how a contemporary painting stands up to earlier paintings. He says: “I’m talking about… looking at a painting made in 2002 by Brice Marden:

Brice Marden, Orange Rocks, Red Ground (3), 2000-2002. Image:

and asking how it stands up in terms of visual engagement against a canvas painted in 1952 by Joan Mitchell:

Joan Mitchell, No. 5, 1955. Image: artnet.com

Even more, I’m talking about Marden asking himself such a question.” (Rubenstein, A Quiet Crisis, Art in America, 2003)

I believe that criticism should, more than anything, be enlightening and helpful.

Phillip Weissman wrote in his essay The Psychology of the Critic and Psychological CriticismI (1962) that the critic is “minimally required to be a connoisseur,” but that “the step from connoisseur to critic implies to progression from knowledge to judgement.” Good criticism is informed. If that means pointing out perceived shortcomings of an artwork, then so be it.

The art world is constantly changing, and there is no longer a consensus on the state of art criticism. In 1998, the art historian Maurice Berger wrote, “the increased targeting of niche markets, the dissolution of the boundaries between high and low culture, and the concomitant ethnic and geographic diversity of audiences for culture have lessened and even delegitimized the need for dominant, centralized critical voices.” (Maurice Berger, “Introduction: The Crisis of Criticism” in The Crisis of Criticism, New York, The New Press, 1998, p. 6.)

Maxwell Anderson, former director of the Whitney musem in New York, has said: “For those of us about whom criticism is written, the poison pen has less influence today. Museums have become more sophisticated about bringing their messages directly to a potential audience through promotions, listings, advertising…and other vehicles.” Perhaps the new art history is one in which commercialism rules. Galleries hype artist’s work, artists make money and collectors devour of-the-moment art. (The Visual Art Critic: A Survey of Art Critics at General-Interest News Publications in America, National Arts Journalism Program, Columbia University, New York, 2002).

Is Criticism still relevant?
You may be asking yourselves if criticism is still relevant. Yes, I believe it is. Why? Because criticism places art in a historical context. Because critics consider art from a broad perspective, relatively free from commerical bias. Because criticism creates a canon. When you look back at it, the art with the best critical attention will be the art that is remembered. Remember the example I gave earlier of Vasari and the Renaissance. Critics care about the ongoing history of art. To ask whether criticism is relevant is to question the relevance of art history itself.

Furthermore, criticism is important because not all painting is equal. Some is much, much better than others. In 2002, the painter Alex Katz:

Alex Katz, January, 1993. Image: marlboroughgallery.com

commented that “The pursuit of novelty has led to democracy in action which does not have anything at all to do with committed painting. Painting is not democratic. Some painters have more energy and skill than others. Some painters have more interested audiences. Discrimination is greatly diminished.” (Alex Katz, “Starting out,” The New Criterion, December 2002, p. 7)

Young Artist, above all, I urge you to recognize what Milan Kundera, the Czech author and critic has said:

“Without the meditative background that is criticism, works become isolated gestures, ahistorical accidents, soon forgotten.” (Review of Contemporary Fiction, Summer 1989; originally from Kundera’s introduction to François Ricard, La Littérature Contre Elle-Même).

With very best wishes,

VoCA

*This text is excerpted from a talk given at OCAD, February 6, 2007.