I agree about the quality of writing generally decreasing — but don’t blame that all on the web. Look at what has happened to Modern Painters and many others — turning into trendy, poorly written consensus outlets. New City’s quality is far above that of many international publications, and that should be shocking.

We agree age is not an issue, that quality and experience is important, and that not just anyone can claim to be a journalist/critic, that depends on credibility and longevity.

Which means we have a great deal of good professionals, more than the city’s infrastructure/economy can actually support.

and we agree all of them, old media and new media, are relevant and great assets to the city.

To moderate a little between 31-36 and just stick to Internet issues, I think the jury is really out on blogging and online journalism. It’s a really new format, and right now it’s unedited and uncurated. So I agree with Paul that in many cases the writing has fallen. When I write for Time Out, we take pains with every single sentence, Chicago Public Radio was hopelessly forumlaic and polished. Here, I’ll be lucky if I read this over. Much Internet writing is really sloppy. But to stick up for Jason, some sites are fantastic, and edited and just as thoughtful (see Slate and New City), and I do think that’s the direction it’s going. I do think Internet journalism is in it’s infancy, and I personally like to speculate that “Web 3.0″ will go back to fact-checking, good editing, investigative journalism and a code of ethics.

15 years ago, my bother told me that there could be a countless number of websites and each one could be a book, a magazine, a radio tower or a TV station. And I knew, 15 years ago, that we wouldn’t have good, trained content creators to step up and fill all those spots. Talent is no more or less rare than it’s ever been.

So say (I love math) there were 20 great art writers 30 years ago. And say there are 40 great art writers today. Well, they would just be a small fraction of the total number of art writers out there, it would seem like a huge mass of bad writers — but there’s still the same amount of talent in the pool.

It’s all down to sifting through content. There’s so much out there, art and writing, you have to dig and dig to find the gems.

Right? You can’t refute that statement — but for the introduction of a time machine, daimonion, etc.

You misquote me, writing that I: “group all 20/30-somethings into one band of [sic] ignorants.” [Novel, that, transformation of an adjective into a plural noun.]

Not so. As above, my point is that there exists an older generation with great experience in the arts. And to the extent that good writing depends upon experience, said older generation will tend to write in a better [more informed] way than the younger generation.

My fear is that our living history is being lost — and more than lost: rejected by the ignorant. Thanks for the license to introduce that word.

If I mention Artner, Klein and Warren, there are specific examples of people with some history in the City.

Do you mean to claim that experience is of no value?

If I linked to the News Archive: “Jerry Saltz on Frieze” October 27, 2008, there is a specific example of an interaction revolving around the definitions of, and responsibility of journalists and journalism. I made my “complaint” there, in my own name, in a manner that allowed the parties to respond. Duncan responded. Yes, copying and pasting and calling it journalism really lights me up.

I’m reluctant to quote bad writers [in the 20-30 bracket] working off-site — embarrassing them for the sole purpose of proving myself correct. I am holding back.

While it’s true that there are many other with more experience, I’ve followed things in town since Gaylen Gerber was an artist-in-residence *at my high school* 1981 / 1982 [?].

I’m struggling to be polite, as you appear to contradict not only logic — but also my personal experience of the events. I am telling you: Things have changed. I am a primary source. Ignoring me, you prove my point. And calling my words “blind complaints,” does not make them such.

It’s not that the bar has been lowered, but rather that the bar has been done away with, and replaced with a ramp. Declining. Now, functionally illiterate people are not only being given high school diplomas but college degrees. And where, 20-25 years ago, artists were asked to prove some mastery of material/technique, some commitment to their “vision,” before showing their work, there’s nothing: nothing but utility.

Is everyone who claims the title “journalist” a journalist by virtue of that claim? Is everyone who claims the title “artist” and artist by virtue of that claim? I’m tired of having my time wasted by charlatans.

Pedro, not all that’s old is good; not all that’s new is bad. You are right. I want to see it everything, even if I disagree, provided that the practitioners have some professional competence. If the actors in question don’t take their writing or artwork seriously, why should I bother to consume it? Add any Brandl/Kimler quotes here.

and besides the NAE Chi had writers, including me, writing for Modern Painters, Sculpture, Frieze, Flash Art and many other…

that’s why the “whining,” or the ghost of it, if any, is not justified.

There’s nothing wrong with writing about art and being ’30 something…it’s experience + action that counts, not age, that’s the reason why the “old media outlets” are diying, those people were mostly god-like , slower than hell, desk critics.

And please, don’t forget my writing for Artnet during 6 years, that was criticism, not promo.

First: I respect you for “standing up” in public and writing something [anything, really] in your own name, in a manner that allows other people to respond in kind.

Second: Without people like you — people willing to give their time and energy to nurture the things in which the believe — most of what is good in the World [including art] would cease to exist. Thank you.

Please, take that as given.

But, know I worry about several things:

(1) The tone and the “level” of much [most] writing has fallen.

(2) Proportional representation based upon factors such as race, religion, etc., has, looking back at the history of places like the former Yugoslavia, or Lebanon, led to so-called ethnic cleansing, campaigns of mass rape, etc..

(3) While on the one hand, with regard to certain groups/causes, great demonstrations are made of the appearance of toleration and inclusion, on the other hand guests such as Derek Guthrie say things like: “Many funny jokes were made about the Hyman Park Rothschilds.” And no one asks in what way such things are funny…

Best wishes with the next show,

Paul.

Start by asking:
(1) “What is art?”
(2) “What is journalism?”
(3) “What is the relationship between art and journalism?”

I suggest that meaningful dialogue is frustrated in part by the lack of agreement about these fundamental definitions.

At the so-called “Chicago Artist Roundtable,” [Sunday, January 11, 2009] Lynne Warren was correct to assert that perception is shaped by age; Paul Klein correctly reported a tendency for artists, gallery owners and arts organizations to struggle to ‘re-invent the wheel,’ as opposed to learning from the experience of others; and Elizabeth Chodos correctly re-asserted that Chicago still needs [or needs again] some serious, local, art press.

Say what you will about the Chicago Tribune’s Alan Artner, but know that in his own person he is a library of Chicago art: a repository of decades of viewing experience.

And, conversely, admit that those people newly arrived to the City, or having reached only 20~odd years of age, can’t have any any real experience on which to draw.

The “old” media ship is sinking; and it’s the one in which Artner and his peers sail. What’s lost?

What does “journalism” mean to the “new” media — composed primarily of amateur on-line writers in their twenties and thirties? Are Chicago’s “art bloggers” going out into the field and conducting interviews and taking pictures? Citing sources? Checking facts? Doing research?

Does the new art media exist for the purpose of promoting, documenting and critiquing the art? Or, is the media now an end in itself — used for the purpose of advancing the interests of the blogger, and the blogger’s friends, at the expense of art and other artists? Maybe, sometimes, there’s nothing more at work than a desire for a website and/or magazine?

Has “deskilling” affected both writing and also visual art? Once upon a time bad art depended for its acceptance upon good theory. But now bad art and bad theory have married, producing bad art journalism?

Tom seems right: events aren’t being covered; Nic seems right: the conversation here [and other places] in lieu of coverage “is stumbling.”