Art criticism: Honest and refreshing? | nd-aktuell.de

For half a year now I have been spending my evenings not at exhibition openings in Berlin, but in New York. During the openings, the works on display are only discussed superficially, if at all. Or blasphemed behind closed doors. So far not much different than in Berlin. However, things are different on the Internet. Some of the New York exhibitions are discussed in a strikingly, not to say provocatively honest manner, on websites such as Downtown Critic or Manhattan Art Review.

But why is writing that doesn’t shy away from judgment more refreshing than ever in the field of fine art? Reason enough to talk about criticism in the age of poorly paid (cultural) journalism and independent online financing models.

After I see an exhibition, I read the reviews about it. What is striking is that these primarily describe and interpret, whereas value judgments are tended to be avoided. This often makes them difficult to distinguish from the “press release” and relatively boring. The fact that there is currently no particularly wide range of interesting art criticism is not a new diagnosis. One reason for this is primarily the precarious working conditions for (cultural) journalists, which make independent writing difficult. Another problem is the strong bond between those working in the art sector. The boundaries between the professional groups of artist, curator and critic are fluid, which hardly allows any distance from the object of criticism. The thin line between private and professional relationships also makes independent criticism difficult. Who likes to write too critically about friends? Besides, you still want to be invited and given jobs.

I meet a critic from the Manhattan Art Review, Sean Tatol, at Café Gitane downtown. He says that he only moved from San Francisco to New York a few years ago, which provided the necessary critical distance from the local art scene. He also receives a monthly scholarship that currently covers his living expenses and enables him to work full-time as an art critic. In his blog, Tatol primarily discusses exhibitions in smaller galleries that are usually not written about. Using a five-star system similar to Google’s, its ratings range from “awful” to “great” (five stars).

Who likes to write too critically about friends? Besides, you still want to be invited and given jobs.

–

The print series Punctum by the German-Austrian painter Anselm Kiefer, which can currently be seen in the Gagosian Gallery, gets two stars from him, which means “bad”. The critic explains this in five sentences, starting with: “I can’t take Kiefer’s heavy-handedness seriously. Ooh, it kind of looks like the rubble of Germany after the war, I’m so scared!!« (I can’t take Kiefer’s awkwardness seriously. It leaves the impression of a rubble landscape in Germany after the war.) I have to while reading I laugh and have the feeling that I’m listening to a friend tearing apart an exhibition I’ve just visited. Tatol evaluates the subjective aesthetic experience he has during a gallery visit and refrains from analysis or even political discourse. This makes his lyrics seem spontaneous, honest and somehow casual. And it is precisely this quality that makes them controversial and creates access. Such criticisms make you want to agree or disagree – and, what is probably most important, to form your own opinion.

Since my stay in New York, my Google bookmarks have expanded to include “Manhattan Art Review” and the website “Downtown Critic,” among other things. In a little more detail, but sometimes no less critical, various authors discuss exhibitions here, primarily in the US, but also in larger European cities such as Paris or Berlin. New Models should be mentioned as another format for independent art criticism. In audio formats, the platform is primarily dedicated to phenomena relating to post-internet art. Although some of the exhibition reviews and interviews do not have the desired distance from the subject matter and sometimes slip into self-reflection, the podcast format, which is financed via Patreon (a crowdfunding platform), is a notable player in the field of independent online art criticism. A strong interconnection between the cities of New York and Berlin is also clear in New Models. The platform’s hosts Caroline Busta and Lil Internet, in turn, moved their center of life from New York to Berlin a few years ago, which benefited a colorful mix of topics and guests.

In any case, the connection between the two cities in the field of visual arts is remarkable. Historically, it was only through the migration of persecuted cultural workers from Europe during the Second World War that New York became the cultural hub that it is still considered today. However, since the cost of living and rent for less established artists can hardly be paid, the city has increasingly lost its relevance as a production location. Exchange and residency programs, such as those offered by the DAAD and FullBright, have enabled many New York artists to have their first stay in Berlin. Some of them have stayed because of the comparatively low cost of living and good public support structures. They have become a defining part of the Berlin art scene, but at the same time they also maintain contact with the much more active New York art market. “Produce in Berlin, sell in New York!” they say. (Work in Berlin, sell in New York.)

In summary, it can be said that the potential of digitalization for critical writing and thinking about art is far from exhausted. On the Berlin-New York axis, formats are emerging outside of institutions and publishers that make people want to engage with art.

Charlotte Eitelbach studies fine art at the Berlin University of the Arts and spent a summer semester at the Pratt Institute in New York on a FullBright scholarship.