"During the boom, reviews didn't matter. Good reviews didn't hurt. But they didn't make artists either. The big money winners of the '80s, generally, hit the big time without anointment from the critics. Dealers wielded whatever power the critics once had. But why? Why didn't anyone pay attention to the critics anymore?
What killed criticism was its parochialism. Art writing separated itself from writing. It circled the wagons into a closed system of self-referential language studed with fancy opaque buzzwords. I've been reified till I felt refried. Art criticism began to look like it was written by lawyers. It was written in a clubby language and this club was pre-dated. Its semiotic shoptalk sounds like bellbottoms look. And despite the seemingly political correct posture of the most flagrant practioners of this jargon. Collins and Milazzo for example; it was inherently elitist and obscurantist. It said considerably less than could be said in a similar volume of plain language, although with an infinitely more precious veneer. In short this sort of critical writing was a joke that didn't know it was funny.
Art writing should expand the audience for art, expand the understanding of art and empower powerful art. Art writing should be written for a big audience, not an inner circle. Generally, today, it is written not to be read at all, but to frame the pictures in the catalogue with important looking markings, texts so impenetrable the seem intelligently by default."
yes, to curator's text but no no to "fancy opaque buzz words".
ReplyDeletewas thinking of a non linear text initially used just as broken wall and ceiling text.
ReplyDeleteof course i will have to write a simple linear press note!
which is another story
non-linear is great
ReplyDelete