+BILLION- #17

Art Criticism Conditioning (or Reframing?)

Art Criticism Now     

The LAB

Keynote paper from David Berridge

Interview between critic and curator Caoimhin Mac Giolla Leith 

and performance artist Amanda Coogan.

Panel discussion on the nature and current status of art criticism, with Niamh Dunphy, Cristín Leach, James Merrigan, and Jason Oakley. The discussion was chaired by Fiona Fullam.

Response by James Merrigan

The problematic title of the event "Art Criticism Now" at the LAB, surprisingly avoided getting bogged down in the problems of "art criticism" and ended up being a celebration of art writing and the potential avenues that writing around art can take in the future. The session was organised by Fiona Fullam who opened proceedings with a quote by Oscar Wilde––the tone was set. As a panelist I usually come away from these forums frustrated and disappointed, but there was a certain optimism (from my embedded perspective), that this event achieved. This was due in part to the key note speaker David Berridge, who presented an encompassing overview of art writing and criticism from a "writer centric" position. There was a bit of the 'Wilde' about him,  standing and grasping the books that he had brought with him from London and piled on a desk in the LAB. Berridge presented the audience with the different conditions of art writing from the critical, poetical, fictional, personal etc. But what I gained most from his presentation was a visible love for writing on art: a true bibliophile.

The intervening interview/discussion following Berridge's presentation and before the closing panel discussion seemed (to my mind), a world apart. Curator and art critic Caoimhin Mac Giolla Leith interviewed performance artist Amanda Coogan regarding the 'business' of criticism and art writing. Mac Giolla Leith spoke eloquently of the parameters of writing on art when you are writing for the big league––he has written for Art Forum, Frieze, Flash Art to name but a few. These 'parameters' included the correct etiquette of the writer, such as not being able to buy a work by the artist if you are about to write, or have written on the artist. In the following panel discussion Cristin Leach (Sunday Times) also touched on conditional aspects in the profession of art criticism, when she 'decided' not to write catalogue essays, as her position as an art journalist for the Sunday Times would be compromised from the editors point of view. Amanda Coogan gave us an 'inkling' into the importance of art writing for the medium of performance, as part document and "musculature" for the business of art. Within this thread of the discussion the word 'control' in relation to 'commissioned' writers for artists, pronounced by Mac Giolla Leith in response to Coogan, rang true. 

I can only give you my subjective perspective as a panelist on the closing discussion between myself, Niamh Dunphy (Paper Visual), Cristín Leach (Sunday Times), and Jason Oakley (VAN & Printed Project); and  chaired by Fiona Fullam. I have come to learn that the chair is probably the most important job in these panel discussions on art criticism, and Fullam brought a rare focus to the trajectory of the discussion. She was also visibly invested in the questions and answers by the participants. This was very important. Fullam facilitated a starting point in regard to the "interview" being a form of criticism which I didn't get to reflect on or answer at the time. My use of the interview on +BILLION- was a way to catch the artist in human mode rather than the objective artificiality of writing, and to get to the bottom of why they make art and the self made conditions in the process of art making. In some ways the voice or 'speech act' is long forgotten before the indelible mark of the printed word or even blog entry. Unless you practice what Foucault describes as Parhesia, a Greek Term for 'open' dialogue without a censor switch. In the end, criticism is easier as a "speech act," but maybe doesn't have the longevity or presence that the written word commands of memory; because the text can be reread, recycled etc. There is also the contagion of 'rumour' tied to the speech act, which comes from a twisting of the words spoken at the live event, to become another form of pseudo criticism. Even though these live public events are mediated through audio and film, these recordings don't really register afterward. Gossip is a powerful critic.

Cristin Leach also mentioned that when she critiques something harshly for the Sunday Times the labour that goes into that criticism is monumental compared to the positive review. The old adage that "it is easier to destroy than to create" is false in this respect, probably due to a greater responsibility on the part of the writer to choose their words carefully (combined with error free research), in the slow criticism of the art work. Look what happened to Claire Bishop when she got her 'facts' wrong in her antagonism towards Liam Gillick and Relational Aesthetics––Gillick debunked her whole critique in a substantial response to her error riddled essay. Even with the errors, I still think Bishop's essay is great, especially considering the response that it elicited from Gillick. 

Jason Oakley also reflected on the purpose of judgement? Why should we judge? Is it necessary? I also reflected on how within the art institution art criticism is expected and excepted––up to a point; such as in the private forum of the visiting lecture, where an artist from the exterior art world finds him/herself being judged by eager students in the 'private' lecture theatre of the institution. But could this same happening occur at a public art discussion in the gallery? The question is can we condition criticism? Can we reframe criticism as an important aspect in the progress of art discourse and the questioning of the art object locally? 

The idea of 'judgment' and art was put to the test this week when one of the art critics for the Guardian newspaper, Jonathan Jones,  wrote a scathing review of Mark Leckey's solo show at the Serpentine, London; one paragraph went something like this:

"Like I said – great on paper. But art happens in physical space, in the realm of bodies also known as the human world. In that world, Leckey does not get his ideas across. His messing about with speakers and screens does not come across as cool, but laboured and empty. The installation GreenScreenRefrigeratorAction with its bonkers talking gadgets and walls tediously coloured to reflect the park outside (culture v nature, geddit?) is one of the worst works of art I have ever seen in a serious gallery. It means nothing; it just makes noise to create the fiction of meaning. It is pompous and clumsy and utterly miserable for no good reason." 

This rant continued in the comment section below the review, where over 200 comments (and counting) were posted. This excessive commentary only proves the point that 'stupid judgment' can provoke dialogue but to what end? As a form of entertainment, yes? Declan Long summed up the episode succinctly when he commented on Facebook: "One man has an exhibition. Another man says he doesn't like it. Pissing contest begins." Fundamentally, this whole Jones/Leckey argument was more to do with power than art. 

From my position as an art writer rather than an art critic, I put forward (as I have done before), that criticism is not possible on a local level, unless you are fully detached from the art scene. Leach described an episode that involved someone coming up to her at an opening and saying "How can you show your face around here" or something in that vein. But, in saying that, Jason Oakley announced that Visual Artists' News Sheet will be committing to a new review section, which will 'practice' judgement. I responded at first with pessimism, that this would not be possible unless you 'import' writers from another country. But, on reflection, maybe if the artist, curator, institution are 'conditioned' into the idea of criticism over a period of time, in other words, if VAN's new art criticism project from the Roberta Smith handbook of art criticism––where you describe in the first paragraph, contextualise in the second and judge in the last––gets over the initial hurdles of hurt, or let's be dramatic and write "shock and awe," then I see this as an exciting prospect. It offers a much needed 'rupture', and even if it inspires new positions, new discussion and most importantly, new writers who are not the usual suspects then it will be a success. 

At the end of the session,  artist and writer Alan Phelan exclaimed that the art scene "is a mess, but what a great mess it is!" What a transformative sentiment,  to see potential in the "mess": a blood into wine moment. Let's hope we can condition ourselves positively to the VAN proposition of 'judgment' and the shit doesn't hit the fan, or maybe we can transform 'that' into––maybe not gold, but progress. All in all the future is ripe for reframing criticism! Well here's hoping...

If you want to reply or just continue this thread of discussion just send emails to billionartjournal@ymail.com           Thanks

Here is the link to Guardian review by Jonathan Jones on Mark Leckey: Enjoy