Marek Bartelik
This text was written in response to a questionnaire about the state of art criticism during the COVID19 pandemic sent to the author by the Polish-language art magazine “Restart” published by the Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow. It has been included in its inaugural issue (https://restartmag.art).
RESTART: How does the current pandemic affect the work of art critics? Do the cultural activities and exhibitions that have moved online provide inspiration for critics or do they limit them? Some critics have been retreating from traditional publication toward new methods of communication. For example, Jerry Saltz and Waldemar Januszczak are very active on social media. How do you see such initiatives as they relate to lasting trends that will set the course of future criticism?
MAREK BARTELIK: Discussions about the future of art criticism have been going on for years, not only on the state of criticism at a given time, but on its very definition.
Is art criticism a profession? If so, it’s more like a part-time job. But nowadays it’s not even that. While serving as President of AICA international, I joked that it was an organization of 4,500 “unemployed” in 63 countries — for the vast majority of its members do not support themselves by writing reviews or essays on art. It might be argued that today an art critic is a “weak” participant in the discourse on contemporary art. His/her place has been taken by institutional or self-proclaimed “curators” or academic professors. In the past, artists treated critics with respect, although sometimes also with resentment or distrust. (I experienced this attitude myself once at an opening in New York, when an artist, having learned that I was contributing to “Artforum International,” said to me: “I feel sorry for you.”) The influence of critics today cannot be compared to that of such authorities of the past as Clement Greenberg, Rosalind E. Krauss, or Lucy R. Lippard, to mention the names of only a few stars of 20th-century American criticism. Their unfavorable opinions were feared, because, indeed, they could be very harmful.
Photo Gabriela Motawetz; © Marek Bartelik
Globalization has increased the number of reviews and other writings on artists from previously overlooked countries, but at the same time it has contributed to the “rat race”: now a critic has to fight for attention, and often “attention” has nothing to do with the quality of the art. In the era of “post-truth” hardly anyone is looking for insightful thought. It is enough to have something written on one’s art, no matter if it’s right or wrong.
The pandemic has deprived art criticism of — or at least limited its access to — its most important inspiration: in-person contact with artworks. Images of art online simply do not show the subtleties of the works. Of course, experiencing art from reproductions is nothing new. If I am not mistaken, Mark Rothko’s fame in Poland began with the publication there of poor-quality black and white reproductions of his art in books. It took an incredible act of imagination for Poles to feel the uniqueness of these works. But things are different now: the photos that we see posted on the web are often enhanced to excite our senses to the maximum. This kind of contact with art reminds me of “speed dating.”
Personally, I have no interest in visiting virtual exhibitions, or in Zoom discussions. The pandemic has given me the opportunity to go on sabbatical, to isolate myself from the hustle and bustle of the contemporary art world. I now have time to reevaluate what’s important and what’s not. I don’t have to draw quick conclusions. I don’t have to deal with deadlines. I am writing a book about Aegina, where I currently reside, and about my dachshund, Toby.
It is often said that we need to get back to normal, But I think the very notion of “normality” must be questioned — at least when that means our common experiences of art in recent years, when stardom has dominated the scene and the art market has run amok. By the way, I believe that we deserve the “stars” among the artists and critics that we have.
As for the new means of communication between the artist and the critic — why not? After all, technology is moving forward, whether we like it or not. During the AICA Congress in South Korea in 2014, a Dutch filmmaker presented a video that showed a surreal conversation about art, in which there was room both for rhetorical questions and silence. It wasn’t a quick, YouTube-type of production, but a professionally made para-documentary. But do you have to be a “professional” critic for this type of communication? We may also begin with the premise that at the basis of our discussions about art is the word. In Paris, on the occasion of the annual AICA meetings, there were competitions in which 10 critics, using the Pecha Kucha format and with the same time limit, each presented an artist of his or her choice. Both emerging and established critics took part and the auditoriums were packed. This to me was a celebration of an art criticism where each word counts. Verbal communication is very important to me. In fact, a direct contact with the public gives me the most pleasure — be it a group of art students in the auditorium of the Academy of Fine Arts in Cusco high in the mountains, or a group of artists in a private apartment in Bangladesh, in Dhaka with its surrounding marshes.
Unfortunately, I do not know Waldemar Januszczak’s activities on social media. My understanding is that instead of following the latest trends in art he has turned toward discussions of art from the past that have been validated over time. I believe that we need the idealism of the past, which has been dismissed too quickly as undemocratic. On the other hand, Jerry Saltz understands the effectiveness of satire in his discussions of art, and he uses it intelligently — in the “stand-up comic” tradition. However, does this kind of criticism bring anything significant to our understanding of art? I’m not sure. I think it may only reassure us that there is really something to laugh at in today’s art. But observing the so-called “artworld” is not always funny.
I cannot predict the future of art criticism, or the future of art. However, I hope that instead of moving towards unrefined entertainment, gossip reportage or academic discourse, we will approach a lively, partner-like dialogue with the artist. This is what the artists themselves must want – and critics will become wiser when they deal with wise art. Pandemics pass. With this in mind, we must be careful not to be overwhelmed by fear. History shows that tragedies do not always lead to radical change. Sometimes they force us to move backwards. Will it be different this time?
Aegina, April 2021
Marek Bartelik, Honorary President of AICA International. Served as President of AICA-USA, 2009-2012, President of AICA International, 2011-2017. Taught art history and cultural studies at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science an Art, Yale University, MIT. Between 1992 and 2013 regular reviewer for Artforum International; also published in Art in America, ARTNews, CAA Art Journal, American Art – Smithsonian Institution, Cultural Politics, and others.