|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In Print The New York artworld is a constellation of smaller artworlds that orbit around Chelsea, which for better or worse is the art capital of the world (or so we think). It's got more square footage dedicated to art than all the museums on Manhattan island. I write about the Williamsburg art scene, where I think experimental contemporary art is being made - without enormous production value, and little pretence at making absurd sums of money. Monthly, I get wasted at openings and skulk around galleries hung over for my column (the art crawl at www.freewilliamsburg.com ) about the good and the bad. Attempting to 'unpack' the publications and critics that influence the New York art scene was initially puzzling - I'm not exactly at the center of the art universe here, but speaking from the fringe provides me with certain liberties. I've managed to avoid getting wrapped up in the politics of appeasement. It's a nasty game really, opinions can get compromised rather quickly. The art crawl works mainly because I don't get involved personally with the galleries or artists. It helps me avoid any sentimental attachments. Despite that I e-mailed some of my adversaries to see if my take on the scene was way off base. Turns out, many of us are on the same page.
Basically, people read a few titles and have a couple of favorite writers, but no one is reading the flood of titles out there. Criticism can be rather mercenary, sacrificing depth for speed. Good critics don't always make the best writers and people often prefer reading theorists, novelists, or philosophers when they dip into the artworld. Realistically, we use each other, weeklies, magazines/papers, and the internet. The old grapevine is the main source for art-world news. It's a huge, cliquey network not all that different from highschool or friendster. Gossip and personal connections provide insider info on openings, calls for entries, and juicy bits. It's the weeklies that probably have the biggest immediate influence, starting with the Friday New York Times . The capsule reviews highlight a few lucky shows, a huge deal considering the impossible number of galleries. Williamsburg gallery owners hang on Times reviews for collector traffic. Roberta Smith's formal- and craft-oriented reviews tend to bring on the collectors. She's not much for conceptual work and her gauntlet-throwing remark about a return of the formal speaks for itself. Holland Cotter should get a medal for all the traveling he does, from the Bronx to the Lower East Side; he's probably the most egalitarian of the bunch, actively seeks out emerging art. Michael Kimmelman is a gusher with a penchant for making outrageous, polarizing claims, kinda making him fun to read, though he's no intellectual heavyweight. I can't be bothered with Ken Johnson. Nothing in the Times is going to give you a headache. It's an easy way to get a heads-up. It's funny how the galleries hang on these things, like they're a seal of approval for collectors. The Village Voice , The New York Press , and Time Out are the other weeklies we bother with. The writers for Time Out are generally anonymous and they don't publish anything remotely negative about art; they aren't trying to add to the critical debate, just give people something to do. It doesn't have a critical bone in its body. It's mainly good for generating foot traffic and buzz among the public. Collectors aren't paying much attention to it. Jerry Saltz has been running the show at the Village Voice for a while now. Though his writing is about as sophisticated as mine, what I love about Jerry is his unabashed love affair with bad-bad painting that can get downright uncomfortable to witness. His review of Dana Schutz was an open love letter. Anyway, people read him because it's a free paper and he's got a shred of personality. Some of Jerry's highlights include his bashing of Chelsea's rampant commercialism last year and his embarrassing column about the difficulties of being a weekly critic. I felt just terrible for all those tough decisions he'd had to make over the years; nonetheless, the little Voice Choice doesn't have the same weight as a Times review. Oh! the New York Press , what a funny little paper. This guy Christian Viveros-Faune gleefully tears into something bi-weekly. His recent and lonely trashing off the Matthew Barney exhibit was so broad, it ended up bashing most of the process-based performance and video art of the '90s... The ironic thing is, he also runs a gallery that represents artists like Guy Richards Smit and Bjorn Melhus who make exactly that kind of work. If I were them, I'd read the article before signing any new contracts. The rest of the paper is worthless, but Christian's genuine value judgments will polarize any casual conversation about art. At the top of the heap of New York art mags are Artforum and Art in America , even though most people read them with a touch of disdain, like "This is it? This is the big time?" My girlfriend subscribes to Artforum , but let's be honest here. I read it for the ads. They are ninety percent of Art Forum , aside from their theoretically suspect reviews. There are a couple of problems with the big publications. First, the reviews are really dated. Same thing with Art in America , In the latest issue there's a review of Robert Boyd's solo show I saw in, like, October. It's great for the rest of the world, but provides a narrow representation of the artist's work; especially performance- and installation-based work like his. It's only a problem if you can't see the art yourself. It's also a shame the big magazines don't review galleries that don't buy ads. The Williamsburg galleries have resorted to buying ad space as a group. So, you're not getting necessarily what the critics could potentially write about, just what is covered - kinda like medical insurance here. With all the patronage involved, bad shows by important artists are usually glossed over. It must be an unwritten rule that critics can only offer bland critiques for paying customers. If you want to see the hegemony of New York criticism, just read the list of contributing editors in Art in America .
It's amazing how insular and monotone the artworld can be. It's not surprising that people are reading other less esteemed art magazines to get different (maybe even critical) perspectives. There's a whole crop of second-tier, alternative, mags like Zing and Bomb , but usually they cost a lot more money. While Zing has cool artistic projects and decent, long-form criticism of underrepresented emerging artists, at $25 it's a bit steep. Bomb is good, but has a broader program than the visual arts, so I usually check out what they put online for free. Cabinet gets a lot of attention; though I've never read a single issue, it comes highly recommended. Artnews is a pile of crap that's mainly an industry rag, can't say it's remotely alternative either. Sculpture is pretty good too, and they run a lot of reviews of emerging artists. Stepping down, you arrive at some interesting regionals that come in all shapes and sizes, like the Brooklyn Rail , New York Arts , 11211 , and Block magazine. The Rail , which has been maturing nicely, is displacing the Village Voice as an actual alternative paper. I love it mainly because it's always loaded with art reviews, essays, and interviews. Its focus has shifted off of Brooklyn a bit, but it's just growing up. New York Arts magazine features a ton of reviews, but the quality varies wildly and the editing is a bit weak. As one fellow writer put it, "they'll take anything." The web has opened up the scene and given people access to more diverse criticism. One artist I talked with loves the web's fly-by-night critics like me, because we can freely express our opinions. No career or reputation at stake. Some of my favorite online sources are the Douglas Kelly List ( http://dks.thing.net ), a weekly e-mail listing a bevy of art openings with witty descriptions and art news. It's invaluable really. I loathe to admit it, I read artnet.com ( http://www.artnet.com ) fairly regularly for Walter Robinson's chipper weekend updates, Charlie Finch's bitchy reviews, and the regional coverage. The New York Foundation for the Arts website artswire section is great for finding out about shows. In Brooklyn, runs some reviews, http://freewilliamsburg.com has a fairly comprehensive list of shows (and of course my monthly artcrawl ), while http://billburg.com occasionally runs art reviews and has a gallery list as well. The Rail ( http://www.brooklynrail.org ) is also online these days and is being updated far more regularly. I decided to refrain from pasting any kind of ratings, total fucking overkill. Art-related media should support and illuminate art. None of it is anywhere near as good as getting off yer ass and seeing art, exercising your own critical skills, judgment, and taste. It's probably why I initially found it odd to be talking about art critics and magazines - because we do a lot more looking in New York than reading. It's why I put up with the ridiculous rent, foul air, constant threat of terror, and the perpetual din of traffic. For my parting shot, I'd like to make the observation that half of what gets read has the reader's name in it. Keane A. Pepper is a habitual critic living and drinking in the Hipster Capital of the World. He is author of the Freewilliamsburg art crawl . Article reproduced from CIRCA 105, Autumn 2003, pp. 57-59.
Make a comment [97]
|
|
Scans
Recent online reviews
Recent online articles
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
