I truly enjoyed reading this post. I moved to NYC in 1980 and struggled along with so many artists, to find my way through the myriad of outlets that would hopefully promote, support the work I was making. Reading Art Forum and ARTNews was very important for keeping me in the know, always important in the art world. But I found Art Forum so unnecessarily dense and painful to read as I needed not only a dictionary but a commentary for every article! What's the word, Esoteric? Arrogant? I am certain they alienated the majority of would-be readers and actually denied us the ability to grow from their insightful criticism. I tried like so many and faulted myself rather than seeing it as self-aggrandizing gobbledygook.
I was addicted to Artforum as an undergraduate years and years ago, when the publication still had fairly lucid writers like Walter Darby Bannard and Barbara Rose. I fell away from the fold for decades, paying attention only when I went to work for ARTnews, and by then it was all word soup, and not very tasty at that. I don't know if they still have a print presence, but I recall it was always fat with full-page ads from all the "important" galleries. For a truly smart and amusing take on the magazine, read Sarah Thornton's "Seven Days in the Art World," an anthropologist's report on, well, aspects of the art world, including Artforum and classes at CalArts. Another great study of Artforum is Janet Malcolm's "A Girl of the Zeitgeist" in the New Yorker, about Ingrid Sischy's tenure as editor. You might be able to find it online.
This is an extraordinary piece, Ann. You were modest in your assessment of yourself as a critic; and to judge you as a writer, only superlatives suffice.
Enjoy your writing and your humor. Visited the art school in Cardiff in 1970, an eye opener to walk into a large high ceiling painting studio with a tiny window near the ceiling, took minutes for my eye to adjust in the dark and see the room full of artists working on easels. The Caravaggio lesson.
Ann, Discovering your writing has been a pleasure, but on the subject of art reviews, I have to weigh in. I also wrote for Art News (free lance reviews) as well as many other publications, but I always have felt that the main purpose of the contemporary art critic/reviewer/writer is to place that art within a cultural/social context for the reader. It's more than a thumbs up, or thumbs down situation, and it is even a bit more that weighing the work against art history. Writing and reading about contemporary art is a way of better understanding ourselves and times.
It's always a challenge to write about contemporary art, but after enough years of it you start to weed out the talentless strivers and the propagandists and the clueless victims of OCD. I agree that placing works in context is important, and the artists I admire most tend to be building on a specific lineage in important ways. I'm not sure how looking at art helps us understand ourselves, but it's a wonderful challenge, and in an age of relentless streaming and nonstop visual muzak, I'm really grateful for beautiful things that stand still.
I look forward to reading both.
Thank you!
Here's a link to the second part of the Malcolm article (the first, as I recall, is in the NYer archives and may be hard to access). As you'll see, she's a sly reporter and an engaging writer: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1986/10/27/a-girl-of-the-zeitgeist-ii
Thank you!
I truly enjoyed reading this post. I moved to NYC in 1980 and struggled along with so many artists, to find my way through the myriad of outlets that would hopefully promote, support the work I was making. Reading Art Forum and ARTNews was very important for keeping me in the know, always important in the art world. But I found Art Forum so unnecessarily dense and painful to read as I needed not only a dictionary but a commentary for every article! What's the word, Esoteric? Arrogant? I am certain they alienated the majority of would-be readers and actually denied us the ability to grow from their insightful criticism. I tried like so many and faulted myself rather than seeing it as self-aggrandizing gobbledygook.
I was addicted to Artforum as an undergraduate years and years ago, when the publication still had fairly lucid writers like Walter Darby Bannard and Barbara Rose. I fell away from the fold for decades, paying attention only when I went to work for ARTnews, and by then it was all word soup, and not very tasty at that. I don't know if they still have a print presence, but I recall it was always fat with full-page ads from all the "important" galleries. For a truly smart and amusing take on the magazine, read Sarah Thornton's "Seven Days in the Art World," an anthropologist's report on, well, aspects of the art world, including Artforum and classes at CalArts. Another great study of Artforum is Janet Malcolm's "A Girl of the Zeitgeist" in the New Yorker, about Ingrid Sischy's tenure as editor. You might be able to find it online.
Keep doing what moves you and I will keep following you...it's been a pleasure so far.
Thanks, Jemi!
This is an extraordinary piece, Ann. You were modest in your assessment of yourself as a critic; and to judge you as a writer, only superlatives suffice.
Aw, ya big sweetie!
Enjoy your writing and your humor. Visited the art school in Cardiff in 1970, an eye opener to walk into a large high ceiling painting studio with a tiny window near the ceiling, took minutes for my eye to adjust in the dark and see the room full of artists working on easels. The Caravaggio lesson.
Ann, Discovering your writing has been a pleasure, but on the subject of art reviews, I have to weigh in. I also wrote for Art News (free lance reviews) as well as many other publications, but I always have felt that the main purpose of the contemporary art critic/reviewer/writer is to place that art within a cultural/social context for the reader. It's more than a thumbs up, or thumbs down situation, and it is even a bit more that weighing the work against art history. Writing and reading about contemporary art is a way of better understanding ourselves and times.
I so agree with you!
It's always a challenge to write about contemporary art, but after enough years of it you start to weed out the talentless strivers and the propagandists and the clueless victims of OCD. I agree that placing works in context is important, and the artists I admire most tend to be building on a specific lineage in important ways. I'm not sure how looking at art helps us understand ourselves, but it's a wonderful challenge, and in an age of relentless streaming and nonstop visual muzak, I'm really grateful for beautiful things that stand still.
yes