I suppose if you are new to town you might take something as failed and impotent, as completely laughable, as the Chicago Art Critics Association seriously, reinventing the Chicago Wheel of Misfortune yet again-certainly no artists I know of do – CACA; (their own acronym/moniker of choice) is responsible for one thing and one thing alone; that would be, giving shit a bad name-

In what world do the losers get to assess success and failure? I know of no artist here who is waiting around with baited breath for what any of these clowns have to say-

That example has no direct bearing on any recreation of criticism — yet the existence and dominance of careerist intl curators and the secret desire to join them on the part of many small-time quasi-curators — are responsible to a large extent for why criticism is so unimportant — for good an bad.

It is simply a glaring example of where a little, simply questioning and creativity in fashioning experimental structures could go a long way. Your idea for criticism/show suggests a creative re-imagination. This is needed on ALL levels of the artworld now.

Sorry for the self-promotion, but I think these changes that you are asking for are happening, just not at the scale or visibility in platforms that have been built on and according to old media.

PS: keep an eye out for an email from me.

“I suggest the very structure of criticism has to be experimented with. Perhaps gently, but somehow…But also simply far more open, inventive forms have to be found.”

Totally, totally totally. It would make reading criticism more fun too, don’t you think? I don’t know why more publications don’t do the “dueling” multiple voices angle on criticism. Now I left out your part about the international curators not because I don’t agree, necessarily, just because I don’t understand the full context of your argument there. Do you mean, the curator’s words should not be taken as authoritative (in the same way that we’re talking about critics here) or you have a problem with jet-setting curators who travel, schmooze, pick words based on what everyone else says is cool but aren’t really interested in establishing a viable context for presenting those works within their own institutions? (or something along those lines).

I’ll try to search it out — if you hear of it appearing online, let me know.

I stand by the assertion that it is a very good idea, among other things it highlights the relativity of criticism; and more ideas similar to it need to be striven for.

I find CI’s idea above also very promising. We need more such ideas and more guts if we wish to revitalize criticism. When I see discussions of criticism, they all revolve around “should the be more aggressive towards artists or not.” How limited.

I suggest the very structure of criticism has to be experimented with. Perhaps gently, but somehow. First, it should include much more questioning of the “givens” of the artworld, such as, e.g., the unwritten rule that the structure of “international” curators a little gods is never to be questioned. But also simply far more open, inventive forms have to be found.

You can’t see it online, but the last two issues have had “Crossroads: Two Critic’s Assessments”. Not necessarily two differing opinions, but definitely different perspectives.

Your idea would highlight the give-and-take, dialogical approach to criticizing art, which I think is a good idea whose time is here. A related idea of mine, which no one has gone for: I proposed to several publications for whom I have written that they should consider “dueling reviews” two or three of the same artist’s show, critics from “differing camps,” perhaps even when you know one will be positive, one negative — just to put it all in perspective and get out of the Third-Person-knows-everything approach still so prevalent. At least, indirectly, internet is approaching such discussion. i would like to see it more foregrounded, as in your idea.

I reviewed the show and everyone’s comments on ArtSlant.

http://artslant.com/global/articles/edit/7040

Have at it, and if you don’t like being mentioned, I can modify.

Here’s the jist:
My feeling is that the gallery exhibit, technically, physically, is just fine. All the works are strong, Carol Jackson’s Tally is magnificent, a cowboy-style leather huge number that equals nothing (00,000,000,000). The MacKenzie and Kuras duo outdid themselves with Shows No Sign of Being Unresponsive which is emotionally devoid text filled in with teeny tiny flowers so perfect and painstaking it makes you cry (interestingly, Corey Postiglione, in his review, didn’t take a stab at what their bonsai tree had to do with anything.) Bakker’s stuff looks soft even though it’s hard and Meerdo’s roadside grove billboards make the mundane seem organic. The critics wrote in a way that was sometimes personal, and sometimes iconic of their writing.

I think the issue is that people evaluated it as a gallery exhibit. I give it higher marks because I see it as a conceptual art adventure, a showcase of de-materialized art. The trick issue is what, exactly, was the show? Where did the exhibit start and where does it end? Was the text also artwork? Was the panel a part of the show?

K

Vales Values Value and Shows No Sign are wonderful works-with-words in them (I refuse to use that trendy “text work” apellation). Most of all the flat wall-works. Hand done? You know I love sign painting and lettering. Fabulous — even quirky (that’s puckish to you, Richard!)

Christian Kuras and I’s pieces can be found on our site at…

http://bathosphere.org/kurasmackenzie/showsnosignofbeingunresponsive/

and

http://bathosphere.org/kurasmackenzie/heart4ever/

and there is audio at…

http://ispace.uiuc.edu/

I imagine that there will be more visuals on I Spaces site at some point.

Paul you are too kind. Christian and I worked hard on them and were thankful for the opportunity to show them.

d.

Concerning the movement of gases, I space was, in my eyes, symptomatic of a certain type of conflation: the roles of curator, critic, and artist having been blown together.

I hit the opening on Friday night, and listened to a few of the accompanying mp3s, and then envisioned a three-tiered excavation revealing meaning:

(1) The work of 9 artists filled the gallery. But, agreeing with above, “the show wasn’t curated along thematic or formal lines but instead according to the idiosyncratic selection process of each participating critic.” So that, searching for meaning, it was necessary to move down from the artwork to the critic.

(2) Though, if I had been taught that “found objects” and “appropriation” were acceptable because the artistic act consisted principally of choice and placement, did the 9 critic’s choices and gallery placement of 9 particular artists make of the critics — artists?

(3) Downward still, if the critic’s choice and placement were relevant considerations, then what of the curator who conceived of the show — and chose the critics?

Here, I say again, this show wasn’t about keeping things apart, but rather it was about mixing them up.

Indeed, Polly’s comment above contains praise of Claudine’s art criticism. But Claudine’s article deals mainly with criticism and not art. The two things — art and criticism — have become synonymous. And more-and-more often the curator, critic, and artist are said to exist within the same person. Healthy?

To the degree that the show was a matter of strategy to attract critical attention [drawing in at least 9 critics from the onset] the strategy proved good.

But the artwork, I think, suffered. I had seen most of it 1-2 years earlier in various other exhibition spaces. In this new context it whispered aesthetics and screamed personal connections.

C’est la vie. It is, as Mary wrote, a, “slice.” And it is wrong to expect too much of any one thing, or person. That people continue to create — whether writing or art — is good. It is something for which to be thankful. I’m glad that I went! Go.

p.s. It ought not need to be said, but, yes, Duncan’s piece was like unto some wondrous artifact of the gods, fallen down from Olympus.

Wait this might be self serving.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73059802@N00/3473560143/

While it might have been ’sexier’ to have the critics select work that was uneven, or challenged them in the past, in the long run I think it is much more interesting to read about work the critics are interested in…I can only imagine what an exhibition of work that was uneven, or work the critics didn’t want to write about would look like, ouch.

Maybe art criticism is dying—but doesn’t a great critic discriminate between the good and the bad? Is only writing about what they consider to be good or great work bad criticism? I’d much rather read a review or critique of work the critic felt was important, interesting or compelling, that’s usually how I learn about the things that I sometimes don’t get the first time around.

I wonder, who would you choose to write about?

Claudine,

You sound like a clueless grad student in need of attention.