RE: art criticism vs. art writing. Yeah, ‘art writing’ does sound clunky & lame doesn’t it. Maybe my discomfort w/the term comes from my own personal issues with not knowing how to describe/situate/think about the writing that I’m doing now. Especially as it pertains to this blog/website. Eh, I suppose it doesn’t much matter what it’s called, the focus should be on how to do it well, how to make art criticism relevant and appropriate to this format without reducing it all to a snapshot. I’m going to go check out John Haber’s blog now….

I think the web can and is being used well as a location for good, long form criticism. There are several locations where the discussion is better than most glossies. See, e.g., John Haber’s site, among others. I think this can exist along with shorter blog stuff, — the longer pieces should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Twitter seems to me a possibility, but it is often, in use, a complete kowtowing to soundbite culture, and we have seen enough of the effects of that over the last decade and more.

Second, I am against the term ‘art writing.’ It sounds weird, as if it means “art that is writing” not “writing about art.” Yet, of course, ‘art writing’ is modeled on ‘art criticism.’

Also, ‘criticism’ really means analysis and discussion, not only negative comments, although in ordinary “street” language it means simply the latter. So maybe you are right that a new word is needed— “art writing” sounds all wishy-washy to me too — as if it could be just any old pile of words about art, like the descriptive everything-is-okay crap one reads so often in the German-speaking world. “Analytic art writing”? I can’t really think of a better term.