– „Would you like my opinion on your work?“
– „Yes’“ says the artist.
– „It’s worthless“, says the art critic
– „I know, but tell me anyway.“
Criticism seems to be the most discussed topic recently. What could the position of criticism be in a digital and globalized information culture, where people are continuously „like“ activities and each others? How can we be „critic“, if we are part of an affirmative culture with prefabricated instruments of criticisms, be it a „tumbs up / like“ (Facebook), a „follower“ (twitter) or a heart (Instagram). Is it therefore possible to stay radical, to explore and occupy new spaces for criticism? Can I stand the heat of that attempt or do I have to get out of the kitchen?
And in general: Is there a need for criticism in times, in which the classy critic is overshadowed by curators and artists who have learned to reflect and theorize themselves?
I think so. I am incredibly annoyed of most of the art critics, that write for journals like „Sleek“, „Spike Art Quarterly“ or even „Kunstforum“. They do not criticize, they write promotional announcements of art events. Particularly the critics, that are lurking around in that certain environment of „post-internet-art“ / digital art are mostly highly in love and/or in close connection/friendship to the objects/people they write about or in strong need for attention. But how to be a “good” critic and what for?
I suggest: Salons. Dialogue. Knowledge. Exchange. Derivé.
Salons enable to celebrate the shared authorship, to seek the connection to and embedding in everyday life, to dissolve the separation between artist and audience. If you allow yourself to derivé, to walk out-line, to invite people with time and curiosity, you may find a new way of thinking, I promise…
to be continued…