Tom Jeffreys on how the format of a panel discussion can occasionally undermine the opinions of the panel.
The trouble with art criticism? That can wait. More pressing by far is the trouble with panel discussions. There's the occasional illuminating flash of brilliance, but mostly they're a frustrating experience; occasionally they're downright infuriating, and always they're tinged with a lingering sense of disappointment. And yet we keep going back for more.
The Trouble with Art Criticism, held last night at the ICA and programmed in conjunction with the slightly more disappointing Bloomberg New Contemporaries exhibition, is a case in point. The problem is not the panel – which features such luminaries as the Guardian's Adrian Searle, ArtReview's JJ Charlesworth, Melissa Gronlund from Afterall (nope, me neither) and Tom Morton – who writes for Frieze and co-curated the utterly ghastly British Art Show 7. No, the trouble with The Trouble with Art Criticism is the chair: Teresa Gleadowe, head of the RCA's Curating MA course and married, incidentally, to none other than Tate Modern head honcho, Sir Nic Serota.
Specifically, the trouble is that, rather like HMRC's soon-to-'retire' Dave Hartnett, she oscillates between misplaced intervention (frequently interrupting Charlesworth in the midst of some interesting points) and a much more laissez-faire 'light-touch' approach, which allows an initially extremely interesting discussion to degenerate into lazy generalisations, misty-eyed reminiscences, and some bizarrely unfunny impressions courtesy of Adrian Searle.
Nonetheless, The Trouble with Art Criticism provides much to think about for those of us involved in the business of writing about art. The general point is that art criticism is a multi-faceted genre of writing, whose shifting forms, tones and purposes depend to a large extent (lest we forget) on the audience for whom one is writing. Gronlund, Charlesworth and Morton all write for more or less 'insider' art world publications – Gronlund describes her readers as having “eaten the theory apple” whilst Morton points out that he often reviews shows after they've closed. The purpose of his writing then becomes to document or archive an event, rather than advise on whether one should pay £15 to visit it. Searle, meanwhile, writes for the most mainstream audience and is subject to more obvious journalistic difficulties – like deadlines and editors. He also amusingly describes the people who comment on the Guardian website as “mostly unpleasant and foolish”, then, a little later, “dyspeptic and rude and unpleasant people”. What a charmer.
Throughout though, it's Charlesworth who comes across as the most thoughtful and articulate – hardly surprising to anyone who reads his articles in ArtReview. He talks of how, with the rise of the internet, “expertise has shifted to new functionaries”; he speaks in favour of writing with an agenda – to promote artists he likes or take the bigshots down a peg or two; he discusses the importance of reading outside of the subject of art; and is highly critical of a “shift towards a more hierarchical system of meaning making” which comes hand in hand with the professionalisation of the art industry – an industry that, being part of, Charlesworth feels a duty to subject to sustained critique.
There's also some interesting thoughts on what makes a bad art critic. For Charlesworth, it's somebody that is “poorly informed and who refuses to work through the gaps in their own knowledge”, whilst Searle cites “a lack of curiosity” as the central problem. For both, knowledge and experience are key. Gronlund, meanwhile, stresses the importance of simply writing well.
Unfortunately, when it's eventually raised (albeit rather tentatively) by a member of the audience, the topic of commercialism – whether the increasing centrality of advertising to the continuation of all media has an impact on editorial voice and integrity – is neatly sidestepped by all the panel. Perhaps fearing more such impertinence, Gleadowe closes down any further opportunity for questions, and the momentum of the evening begins to peter out.
At this stage, the final irony of the panel discussion format becomes clear. Despite all the talk of new sites of critical opinion and expertise, and the desire for democratic discussion (Searle states provocatively that “I don't believe we've got any authority and I don't believe in authority”) there is nonetheless a two-tier hierarchy in evidence: the panel, with all their experience and knowledge, have a platform for their opinions; the audience manifestly do not. For all the talk of the importance of the 'public', it is the paying public who are tonight overlooked.
Morton, citing a recent article by Charlesworth, mentions the dangers of “an emergence of an art world that doesn't even need to touch a public” - an art world that consists simply of artists, critics, curators and collectors talking endlessly to one another through art fairs, biennales, exhibition essays and (most depressingly of all) publicly funded publications, like, um, Afterall. It's ironic then that, with Gleadowe chairing, there's a similar sense of silencing the potentially contradictory voices of the vulgar paying 'public'. Mother Teresa and jolly old Saint Nic – it's a match made in heaven.
For more advice on what makes a good art critic, read Tom's interview with Brian Sewell, October 2011.
Image credit: Pablo Helguera
Click here to see all London exhibitions.
Click here for things to do in London.
Return to Spoonfed's London Art homepage.
Add an event
Frieze Art Fair to launch new section for young galleries in 2012
Frieze have today announced details for the 2012 edition, their tenth art fair in London. Taking place...