Michelle Kuran has written an excellent article on the state of Canadian art criticism, in the Ryerson Review of Journalism. Read the article HERE.
Young, and determined critic Naja Sayej. Image: torontoist.com
Though Ms. Kuran did contact VoCA for our perspective, we were out of town and didn’t manage to make the interview happen.
Quoting everyone from R.M Vaughn to Artstars’ Nadja Sayej to Canadian Art editor Richard Rhodes and Eye magazine’s David Balzer, the article is an interesting insight into the ‘criticism-by-omission’ that dominates today, and not only in Canada, of course.
Sayej interviewing the ‘old guard’ – Gary Michael Dault. Image: photo400.com
It’s clear that artists, especially younger ones, crave some kind of critical feedback.
As the article says, “Canadian art critics need not betray the art they love with handholding or spankings. Instead, they need to do art the honour of taking it seriously.”
Andrea Carson writes on contemporary art, architecture and design...
12 comments ↓
First off, I don’t know anyone who has chosen to write about art for a living who doesn’t take art seriously. It’s not as if it pays well or brings them a ton of recognition, so what other possible reason could one have for writing about it other than passion? It seems to me that it’s up to editors to be braver/more adventurous in what they choose to publish, and to trust their writers more. (But, then…if editors started giving pages/space to ‘critically constructive’ reviews, people would probably start complaining that the ‘truly good’ shows/artists were losing space to things that aren’t quite up to snuff.)
Anyway, I have to stop reading such articles because all the hand-wringing, finger-pointing and self-flagellation is starting to depress me. I think anyone who has been engaged in this conversation up to this point recognizes that things could be better, so could we get past this and start talking about what possibly could be done about it? Such as, how can critics get their editors to listen, how can we make more opportunities for writing available, how do we cultivate the next generation of art critics/editors, etc.
Interesting article that did some the love versus hate minus constructive criticism that is going on in Canada. However, the assumption that our critics know “precious little” about our occupation is preposterous. I would suggest reading a little more carefully rather than relying on primary source interviews. There is “precious little” to prove the statement true in the article.
I would also ask why she ends with aesthetic judgment as a solution to the Canadian criticism crisis. Anyone remember conceptual art? Oh, I forgot: it is boring. If we judge work on aesthetics there is no point discussing any work past some of the best Modernist artists. I can think of no Canadian painter with the ability to paint like Motherwell or Pollock. There is Elizabeth Macintosh and others of the Ikea school, but hey. We need a new kind of judgement.
Also, I can hardly see the eighties as the golden age of criticism. Yes, Philip Monk is an important critic, but why discuss an article, which is far from his best, from a time where he has publicly recanted other texts.
I would also have to ask just what is so great about Sarah Milroy deriding First Nations art for being, impliedly, too politically correct. And too aesthetically vacant. Perhaps had she had grown up in worse-than-Third World conditions rather than in a gallerist family, she may just not have had time for aesthetics.
Finally, maybe I am cynical but there was little mention of the real motivation for some of the criticism or lack of mention. Publicly deriding a whole school of art is a great way to draw attention to oneself. Being nice to everybody is a great way to ensure ad revenue. An interesting take would be the motivations behind such criticism and also consider the real practical reason behind why so few want to write good criticism: it does not always further one’s career as far as writing bad criticism.
I’m finding it interesting to read in Ross King’s forthcoming book on the Group of Seven, that in 1913 or so, Canadian critics were super conservative, super dismissive of the modern style in which the Group was painting (albeit in a derivative way). Clearly, at that point, the art was more sophisticated than Canadian critics.
Today, though it seems obvious that “The crux of art criticism is what German critic Boris Groys calls “the phenomenon of negative appreciation”—which means to dissect critically, to give art that honour.”
But the idea that criticism-by-omission does any service to the art is absurd.
It’s important to champion Canadian art, but not exclusively. The point is for the critic try to encourage the best, while exposing flaws that might be holding an artist back.
I think both the artist and the critic should be in service to the art.
I remember reading press on the Group of Seven from the 20s in which Lawren Harris was compared to a baboon. Definitely things were pretty backwards. I would be interested to read this book.
Criticism by omission is problematic. I would suggest though that many art writers – with a few exceptions – must raise their craft and knowledge before attempting to judge anything. The writing by many so-called Canadian critics is embarrassing. I found it surprising that in Kuran’s article no one she spoke to mentioned a) writer’s craft and b) rhetorical skills. It is fine to judge, but just like in 1913 Group of Seven time, if the critic is useless, so too is his or her evaluation.
Hey Earl, when did I supposedly publicly recant any of my texts? If you are thinking of the AGYU General Idea newsletter, “Philip Monk” may have recanted but not me. The “recantation” was a fiction within a fiction within a fiction …
OK Philip, I understand, but I think still by exhibiting GI’s work, it was a statement of recantation, or at least it was perceived by many that way. I did take it that way myself despite the fiction game. But to add to my point of citing your earlier text in the Kuran article, I think it would have been better to have chosen more recent examples of your writing due first to the date. As I mentioned more recent work, say your recent article on Toronto art history – or lack of – in Canadian Art, are my personal preference too (no room to expand on this here, so arguably I shouldn’t have mentioned I liked other of your work better in a blog). That said, the Canadian Art article was, like Axes of Difference, not afraid to address local issues critically, and in my mind would have been a better choice.
I am not sure whether or not I am replying to Philip Monk or “Philip Monk” here, or if it matters at all. I also wonder that if one recanted and one didn’t, if there is not a disagreement between the two.
If Philip I recanted and Philip II was only writing fiction in the first place what would be the disagreement?
Just axin’
A differend perhaps, Earl–two language games or genres in dispute. But to your point about “Axes of Difference,” whether you like the article or not, it is pertinent to the issues of Michelle Kuran’s article, a “better” one perhaps not so.
Differend – I just vaguely remember the term from the Lyotard book title, but seems appropriate as per your brief definition.
If “Philip Monk” does have new texts coming up, I look forward to reading them; I appreciated his candour and the genuine remorse displayed in his photograph.
I can’t believe you would feature Nadja Sayej in an article talking about art criticism. What a joke.
Since when is social climbing art criticism?
A bi separate from this topic, but interesting anyway…
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/My-Jerry-Saltz-problem-6502
Leave a Comment