Is professional criticism becoming irrelevant? This seems to be the question recently posed by Financial Times art critic Martin Bernheimer. Having read Mr. Bernheimer’s recent article, it seems to me that someone must have pissed in Mr. Bernheimer’s corn-flakes before he wrote it. It leans towards the extreme in my books. Here’s a taste of his rant:
These are hard times for journalism in America. Newspapers are at best shrinking, at worst folding. Fewer than 10 cities still support more than a single daily. Writers face buy-outs, lay-offs or firing. The papers that survive are making do with fewer employees, fewer pages, fewer articles and fewer opinion pieces. Critics are looking more and more like dodos.
A primary cause of our imminent extinction must be the internet. An impatient generation is succumbing to the free and easy lure of computer enlightenment. Sure, not all those who cover the arts in old-fashioned print are paragons – still, most do have sufficient education and/or experience to justify their views. On the web, anyone can impersonate an expert. Anyone can blog. Credentials don’t count. All views are equal. Some sort of criticism may survive the American media revolution, but professional criticism may not.
Essentially, our civilisation is tilting towards anti-authoritarian contests. Audiences, not judges, select winners. Call it the American Idolisation of culture. On TV, contestants get voted off without explanation. Quality is measured by thumbs, up or down. Scholarly analyses have turned into irrelevant extravagances for snobs.
Many US papers have abandoned thoughtful, detailed reviews altogether. Publishers, editors and, presumably, readers want instant evaluations and newsbites, preferably with flashy pictures. It is Zagat-think, simplicity for the simple-minded.
Yikes! Although I agree that much of the dumbing down of the world can be exemplified by the "American Idolization of culture" (thanks, GWB), I believe sincere and professional criticism is far from dead. And professional critics are not dodos.
An interesting experiment proving the need for professionalism in the arts is still terribly relevant is taking place at the Brooklyn Museum. Looking beyond the pop culture sensations of American Idol, Survivor and Mr. Bernheimer’s sentiments, the Brooklyn Museum created an experimental exhibition called "Click: A Crowd-Curated Exhibition." In short, "Click" is a photography show where the public voted on 389 submitted photographs taken by amateurs. The theme was "the changing faces of Brooklyn." The top 78 photos based on the votes of 3,344 people (on a scale from "most effective" to "least effective") were then hung and displayed making the public’s vote the final say in the quality of the exhibit. In the end, "Click" has been widely referred to as a nice show of pretty pictures that is not very interesting. As a concept, it is a conversation starter. But, as a museum worthy exhibit of contemporary photography, it falls short of any depth and lasting importance. This is not surprising to me.
There have always been examples of giving the people what they want for a short term pleasure (i.e. quick buck); but to bypass and dismiss the opinion and judgments of experts who have devoted long, deep and careful study to certain subjects is an insult to those who cherish the opportunity to learn from those experts who very well might know more than we do.
Professional art criticism is out there – and it is important to rely on it. It may no longer be found in the mainstream via its traditional newspaper and magazine outlets (which, of course, is a shame), but it’s out there. Although the fact that it is diluted by the increased number of freely publicized opinions floating around and thrown in our face, the good critics still rise to the top and make a difference in the arts. To dismiss all blogs and the popular breadth of the internet is a mistake.
What criticism offers, ideally, is informed, thoughtful, well-written opinion, an expression of personal taste based on knowledge, experience and insight that helps readers both decide what to see and understand what they have seen.
Maybe tomorrow Mr. Bernheimer will wake up on the right side of his bed and see things a little less pessimistically. Professional criticism will survive.
