Who are some of the most revered and disliked individuals in America? Art critics of course. I never fail to be amazed at the elastic reputations of certain art critics whose opinions seem to carry enormous weight one day while the next their ideas appear as puffy words caught uncontrolled in the culture in the so-called critic’s “lack of consistency”. I am acquainted with many artists, art historians, curators, art consultants, collectors, art dealers, art writers and yes, art critics. Generally speaking most of these experts agree that a lack of consistency on the part of the critic is the chief reason for the dwindling of his or her professional authority. This authority is partly earned from the distillation of inaccurate principle. Distilled, for the common critic’s reputation is based upon his useful explanations superior of the art-work.
Art critics seem to march to the beat of their own drummer. Why? Is it not their job to see as any ordinary tax-paying citizen does? No, because if they saw art just as you do they would agree for the same reasons with personal taste guiding their opinions. A professional art critic must abandon these stinging aesthetic arrows for a quiver of more tolerable weapons; but perhaps he has become too good to the world’s interested readers. Does he see art with the same visual mechanics as we see it; Of course, in fact they are frequently trained to see analytically, at least as far as they are able.
And that brings me to the point…rest assured when you question the opine of a certain art writer who seems anxious to convince you of a point held dear, you must remember that he’s the paid expert, the professional who spends hour after hour researching the art then carefully weighing the value of his own ideas, these being in effect his contribution to the art he’s considering. Finally he or she offers that valuable idee recue to everyone regardless of one’s art background. Indeed you may be the casual viewer who knows something about the artist whose huge coffee table book is scanned by guests but not by you. Or you could be one of those who view art as it is provided by the professional opinion maker, that is, art scrubbed up and bathed somehow in an aesthetic luminescence unperceived but by only a few enlightened creatures . In the meanwhile their heroes spew forth countless new opinions as they trod the earth seeking masterpieces which will help solidify their reputations. And of course a paid critic is a happy critic. Ultimately, the critic regardless of his or her sensitivity is providing an education in art.
Accordingly, we must remain loyal to this art critic, continue to respect his Aufklarung yet remain savvy art appreciators by staying aware of the essay that sounds a bit meretricious. On the other hand you must give a nod to those men and women who are hoping for aesthetic anointment. Frequently they are sacrificing the potential of good salaries elsewhere; furthermore they are willing to provide other art-related services such as judging an art show or giving a talk on art at a civic organization. Imagine living your life as a local critic…..are you willing to give of your own time as the world waits with breathless anticipation over your critical contribution. Let’s make it easy….how about your view of some master’s retrospective at MOMA……easy huh…..anointed huh…..experienced huh …..Just as intelligent as the paid critic huh? Is the problem clear to you now? It is quite clear to me. So here’s the bottom line: male or female, art critics are usually a proud ego-driven lot who are convinced that their opinions are our tools to be used for our cultural growth. In fact, the true substance of fine art meaning is found safe and sound in this country’s fine art reservoir, in effect, its aesthetic backbone . Our critics provide insight and education as to the art they review, both historical and that which is being made even as we write.
We, as appreciators of our American art products need these devoted men and women for they are anointed by the arts gods (Terpsichore, Calliope and Euterpe) the many allegories and biographies which point to ancient big innings. No doubt there have been numerous art critics who have found solace in in their reminiscences of masterpieces. But critics have learned that such an experience is like the proverbial shooting star which presents itself for the world to see every 150 years or so. Therefore since few of them have been blessed with the daily aesthetic experience, we have the right I to find our peace in fine art. Need I say, there are few who really hope to achieve such a high goal and those who are may be seen as self-indulgent art freaks…..well, are you one those….one of us?
In the your opinion simply is not as influential as his because he has the job and you don’t. To give published art critics due respect for their years of experience (if so), thus considering their degrees from places of higher learning, their innate skill in defining the essence of the art and providing therein the worthwhile (contemporaneous only) legitimacy of their views on art. These opinions must then be considered within the framework of serious art. How does one receive such sanction enabling him to publish his or hers opinions?
Perhaps there are those individuals whose lives have been devoted to art criticism. as a result of no specific plan just serendipity in their lives which prepared them for the apparently enviable position. Others pay dearly with life’s gathering of credentials and sacrifices which enable him to proudly announce his position as a critic. Indeed there are few of them in America and the job doesn’t usually pay much but it is a proud endeavor and its rewards can be exceedingly worthwhile. In these Post-modern times the critic usually feels no obligation to clarify and explain his viewpoint to anyone whether they like it or not….the writer certainly wants to prove he has no connection to the artist or the publication for which he works. If asked pertinent questions he may or may not answer; yet, he defends himself saying his beliefs are neither dogmatic nor superficial, right? He is principled, right? And everyone should be able to perceive his unprecedented position , this unique connection with the infallible art gods in the sky ( when the stars are in the proper alignment our critic communes with his special milieu one far above collusion…he is a courageous fighter for truth in art….he reads Kant and loves the ideas of the Pre-Raphaelites ….he understands both Blake and Kandinsky? They are in fact far too subjective to explain in this essay. Instead, suffice it to state that this nation has produced a few outstanding art critics – art historians whose careers sparkle in the bright starlight of good taste and cautious critical opines as they judge the art set before them. History applauds the thoughtful analysis of contributors such as Dunlap and Fielding while a devoted scholar like Belknap could not match his extraordinary art research with critiques because he lacked actual examples by which he might render opinions America has produced brilliant art writers such as Charles Caffin and intuitive art thinkers like Sadakichi Hartman and Fanny Butcher but there were few more willing to venture out on a limb than Samuel Isham.
It is a shame that space does not permit a comprehensive listing of great contributors to America’s annals of art criticism yet, it seems reasonable to generalize: America has produced some critics who stand head and shoulders above their European counterparts. The truth is that the American art crowd (including wealthy collectors) has made our great art treasures exceedingly valuable. A brilliant critic such as Norman Cantor or John Updike has helped provide our burgeoning art community with frameworks for insightful understanding of art, arguably our greatest national treasure. Who could not be impressed with our need for continued excellence in published art criticism in reading the words of the insightful explanations of Greenough in her writings on Stieglitz the all-time champion of American art?
“They (Stieglitz’s photographs) do not abandon the idea that photography could embody subjective expression. By contrasting the beauty of the skyscrapers with their unremitting growth, Stieglitz made the buildings symbolic not only of the continuous change of New York, but of change itself as a principle of all being.”
Richard H. Love, artist and art historian who intends no polysemy (not ever) in his own critical writings.