who reads this stuff, anyway?
Even with the increased attention that publications like vita.mn and the other weeklies have been giving to the arts lately, there has been quite a bit of talk about the lack of real arts reporting in our local media. MPR devoted a recent Midmorning broadcast to the topic of declining arts coverage in a discussion with Douglas McLennan, editor of the arts aggregator ArtsJournal.com. When asked about the Twin Cities, Mr. McLennan generally skirted the question but did offer the opinion that there was little indication of the true culture here. He also spoke pointedly against writing that acts simply as a ‘cheerleader’ for the arts.
There is a distinct difference between arts coverage and arts criticism. Arts features, particularly related to the visual arts and gallery shows, do a great service in garnering attention for all the hard work that artists and gallery owners in Minneapolis do to bring art to the public but a feature is not a critique and rarely are we offered any real, thoughtful analysis of an artist’s work.
Just as art should challenge us as viewers, the artists need challenging as well in order to accurately and properly reflect the culture around them. They need to hear our opinions, questions and critiques or we all become nothing more than cheerleaders.
It is with that idea in mind that we have asked Mark Wojahn, a member of the visual arts critics union VACUM, to offer a critique of Ben Olson’s solo show at Rogue Buddha. In the interest of full disclosure, the review we will be posting later today was solicited by mplsart.com, Ben Olson is a featured artist on the site and the subject of his work is Emma Berg, his wife and founder/director of mplsart.com. It should also be made clear that any review we post now or in the future will remain unedited and printed in full, regardless of the position of the critic.
We believe strongly that a critical dialogue is needed amongst artists in Minneapolis and we hope that you will join in that dialogue with your comments here.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:12 am
i, for one, am thrilled that you’re not only writing about the arts in the cities, but going out to enjoy the opening parties and report back. it is a pretty thriving scene here in minnesota, but to look at a lot of publications, you’d hardly know it! art around here isn’t homogenous, nor are the venues and events, and it’s great to see that variety reflected on mplsart.com
thanks for the good work!
January 30th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Mplsart and Emma,
Thanks for this blog posting. As an arts writer/critic who’s worked hard over the years to develop a significant body of critical work (170+ visual art reviews/features in the past 8+ years) and to build credibility as a local critic (proud to have never been called a “cheerleader”), I thought I’d weigh in with thoughts about this issue of declining art coverage locally.
First off, I agree with the sentiment: arts coverage is declining, and it has been doing so for a good period of time. One of the reasons I started writing about art when I came to town in 1998 was because, even back then, fellow artists I met almost universally complained about this perceived lacking. The very fact that the complaint has not gone away is indication that things continue to worsen. In my opinion, the reasons for this are many. National studies have shown that as ad revenue at mainstream media outlets is stagnant or declining, editorial policy leads to increasing marginalization of arts and cultural writing in general, and arts criticism in particular. Last spring, I worked as a media specialist for a major museum on the East Coast, and when I talked to critics at major papers around the country I heard again and again the same story: Never had things been so bad at the paper, revenues so low, editorial support so nonexistent, and space for arts writing so scant. Critics in all media have seen their livelihood threatened by cuts and diminishing space, even as artists clamor for them to write more, so that this was the major point of discussion at the National Art Critics Conference last spring and the subject of several new books.
What’s an individual to do about this? Well, I’ve tried to foster arts criticism opportunities personally for many years–connecting with national and local editors to get space for stories, researching the possibility of starting a publication (and deciding after getting the runaround from several funding agencies it was a zero-sum game), establishing a critics association (VACUM) to foster opportunities from the ground up, being involved with mnartists.org since its start up (even though that venue pays half or less of what print media typically pays), starting a critics lecture series at a local major art institution, even partnering with Rain Taxi to produce a criticism insert. The problem is, all of these efforts are just drops in the bucket–turnout for the events and feedback for the writing is at best negligible, even as artists continue to scream that there’s no arts writing. Meanwhile, I’ve grown personally older, poorer, and more exhausted pursuing the thankless goal of fostering arts criticism.
Compounding the problem on the production side is the fact that most people who take on the mantle of art critic, even if they take the job very seriously, make little to no money at it, and therefore cannot afford to dedicate very much of their time to the practice. It may be news to many of you, but good writing takes time to pull off, and most people are too busy generally making enough money to live in order to spend the time it takes to be a good critic. This has become problem with VACUM, as members increasingly have been moving away–from the field of criticism, the state of Minnesota, and art in general. Although I’m still writing the occasional art review for the few national publications I have relationships with, with recent job and life changes and increasing responsibilties, I find it harder and harder to work hours and hours on a review that nets me, essentially, the price of lunch. You may think this mercenary, and maybe it is, but one has to eat and put a roof over one’s head…
That all said, there is still reason for artists to be optimistic about art and its nexus with criticism. The art scene here continues to thrive on many levels, with new galleries and new artists appearing all the time. VACUM is holding together despite recent attrition, and it still runs its core programs–the Trialogue lectures at the MIA, and the VACUM Attachment in Rain Taxi (check them both out!). Mnartists.org is still a unique institution nation-wide,l publishing numerous original reviews, essays, commentary, features, and profiles on art and artists; in fact, word is the site will be going through a revamp/restructuring in coming months that will expand the amount of arts writing and information available to the arts interested. At least one art critic in town is experimenting with blogging as a means to cheaply distribute his idea and musings (and mini-reviews) on local art. And there is movement afoot for several arts writers to team up and create an aggregate art and culture blog akin to the snooty and know-it-all AJ Blogs.
So if you’re an artist complaining that there’s no good coverage of what you do, know this: There are people out there trying to do what you ask for. It’s up to you, however, to decide how much you’re going to support these efforts.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Here’s another attempt to post a link to a local art critical blog experiment.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Michael,
Thank you for sharing your experience and perspective. It is clear that milktoast has become a safer sell than opinion in the newspaper biz, when it comes to the arts at least. I appreciated Mr. McLennan’s national perspective on the matter, as well as yours. I also see that Tom Bartel takes on the issue of mainstream in this month’s Rake Magazine. It’s obviously a growing concern.
I am, however, encouraged by the increased attention art openings and artists are getting lately in our local media. It seems that art is in ‘fashion’ again. That may sound horrific to the cynics out there but I believe it to be of benefit to us all. This is an opportunity for all the artists and arts presenters to take advantage of because it won’t be around forever (as we’ve heard so many times now in the lament of the lost ’80′s.)
In regards to criticism, it should be clarified that I, myself, am not an artist. My current and past work has always been to bring the tools and support that creative people need to do what they do…and to bring the fruits of their labor to new audiences. It’s in this interest that I yearn for more dialogue and criticism so that the hungry, optimistic and so full of potential artists around us aren’t working in a void.
Thank you for your efforts! I only wish that we here at mplsart could provide the means for more reviews from VACUM members. And, although I feel that Lux Iconic’s writings so far remind me a bit too much of bitter coffeehouse rants, I do appreciate his perspective and opinion on all things art as well. I’ll keep reading.
Links fixed. Cheers.
-kristoffer
January 30th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
“Iconic’s writings so far remind me a bit too much of bitter coffeehouse rants.” Hm. Like artists complaining about the lack of ‘critical dialogue,’ I suppose.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:26 am
As mentioned, I am not an artist. Please read my response.
And it’s clear, I hope, that my original post stated a complaint for lack of critical dialogue in the media. I think you, Lux Iconic, present a valuable, independent perspective that is much needed. It’s the tone of your entries that put things in to question for me, that’s all.
And, it seems a bit unbalanced if the critic himself cannot accept criticism.
Looking forward.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:07 am
Just joshing, mostly.
I admit I’m still trying to pin down the right blog-tone.
Thanks for checking out the Lux site. I’m as interested in creating critical dialogue as you and McLennan are.