SURVEY SAYS: No Comment!

Major newspapers pay little attention to art

By Melody Aleene

Most art world insiders have been painfully aware of the lack of serious art critical writing available to the average American for — well, basically for-EVER. We know that the average newspaper reader, sucking down popular press with a morning latte, has no clue what we are up to and virtually no one is trying to bring them up to speed. Now, thanks to National Arts Journalism Program’s (NAJP) recent survey, The Visual Art Critic, we have it in writing. Or do we?

The introductory section of the survey report states that the project, funded by the Pew Charitable Trust, aims to emphasize the need for publishers to “continue to invest in and support art criticism” by profiling the average American art critic and pointing out certain frustrations that hamper their writing. This part of the document sounded more like a plea for funding than an honest research aim and could just be part of the politics of grant funneling. If the NAJP can make a great case for more “investment” in art critical writing, perhaps philanthropic organizations will cough up the cash to make it happen. If the NAJP is successful, there could be a plethora of small independent art newspapers on the horizon all happily funded by organizations like Pew because newspapers are never going to step up to the plate.

When we think about what newspapers are really up to, selling their product, the outline of the dollar sign hovers over even the most hard-core news story. Simply put, shock and schlock sell more papers than serious writing ever could. The American newspaper reader is more interested in seeing sensationalism, movie reviews, and sports scores than art reviews. Art critics writing for these publications are frequently frustrated in their efforts to bring serious art to the masses by publishers who understand the drives of their readers all too well — and choose to pander to them.

Similarly, advertisers gravitate toward publications that present their endeavors in a positive light. The call issued by Hilton Kramer of The New York Times for advertisers to boycott Artforum back in 1975 in protest of the editorial policies of John Coplans and Max Kozloff. The boycott soon resulted in Coplan’s dismissal and Kozloff’s resignation, clearly demonstrating the power certain art critics can possess.

At the time, Coplans and Kozloff were directing the content of Artforum away from formalist criticism and traditional media categories, choosing instead to focus on art-activism, the blurring of media lines within artistic production, and exposing poor or questionable museum management practices. Kramer saw the move as an attack on the status quo — which had kept his Greenbergian self quite well-fed on several levels — and he used his column to enlist the help of Artforum’s advertisers (mainly museums and high-profile galleries) to squash the trend with a great deal of success. Thanks to Kramer — and others — the Artforum of today is a vastly different publication than it was in its early years.*

If an art critic like Kramer could incite a reaction from advertisers that would eventually topple an editorial team at a major art magazine in the mid-1970s, certainly today’s art critics — raised on market economics and sensationalism and brandishing their advanced degrees — can wield a similar amount of power. In fact, there are some rather disturbing practices in the survey report that, once uncovered, threaten to discredit the entire document.

The most disturbing practice in The Visual Art Critic is the highlighting of minority opinions and the failure to mention where the majority of responses fell. The statistical data, neatly tucked away in the appendix or graphically presented in several floating shades of peaceful blue (so as not to draw too much attention) within the narrative section, is a key resource to understanding this document and the allegiances of its authors. For example, in the narrative section we find the statement, “Almost half of them said that their publications would not make it a priority to replace them if they left their jobs.” We do not even have to flip to the appendix to take this statement to task because there is a happy little pie chart right next to it that shows 61 percent of respondents either strongly or somewhat agree that this is not the case. With the results almost equally divided (39 percent v. 61 percent), why would the authors of this report choose to focus on the — just barely — minority opinion? Could it be that this particular set of responses makes a better case for more job security and status in their profession?

Another example of this kind of selective highlighting or interpretive analysis appears when we compare the narrative statement, “But for art critics themselves, judging works does not appear to be a pressing concern,” with the bar graph below. The graph shows that respondents generally place slightly more emphasis on descriptive and historical information, the writing’s literary value, and theorizing rather than opinion rendering.

However, the key to this piece of data lies in the percentage of respondents who checked off “Not much emphasis” and “No emphasis at all.” Here we find that only three percent give rendering a personal opinion no emphasis at all and only 15 percent give the task not much emphasis. So, that would leave 82 percent of respondents in the “A great deal of emphasis” and “Some emphasis” categories on the judgment-rendering question. Rendering a personal opinion may not be the highest priority for these writers, but it clearly is a concern. This leaves me wondering exactly what percentage of respondents above the 82 percent would have had to change their answers in order for this concern to be considered “pressing” by this study.

“Pressing concern” or not, the trouble with rendering a judgment within the pages of a newspaper is much harder to address than the NAJP’s handy little matrix would lead us to believe. For these writers, the question is not merely a matter of choice. Imagine, if you will, trying to tell the world what is wrong with Sister Wendy’s work in 200 words or less and you’ll get a sense of what they are up against. Top that off with the fact that as a lover of and writer on art you might just want to try to get people to go SEE some art and your parameters are set. Your mission, dear critic, is to increase public awareness and interest in your topic. Negative reviews are less interesting to the average reader because negative information is unpleasant to digest. Who, other than an art-world insider, wants to read about a show or a piece of art that fails? Furthermore, who is going to support an industry that garners negative press on a consistent basis?

While evaluative reviews are useful to industry insiders and more acceptable in directly commercial pursuits, like Hollywood films or popular music, the fine art community is simply not prepared to withstand such public airing of its arguments. Just remember the negative press over Sensation a few years back and the adverse effect it had on the Brooklyn Museum’s financial condition and public reputation or check out the recent New York Times article on how Thomas Krens of the Guggenheim nearly got the ax when a major contributor publicly demanded he put forth a more sound budgetary policy, and you’ll understand the precariousness of our situation. Also, keep in mind that our work is generally under-funded, misunderstood, and beyond the intellectual grasp of the average American. In order to bring them into our galleries and museums, we need as much positive press and educative writing as we can get without compromising our integrity. This is what our newspaper art critics are up to and The Visual Art Critic, even with its obvious allegiances and questionable assertions, serves to further this aim by bringing attention to the state of art criticism and art critics in our most widely read publications.

So, if the mass audience has no interest in serious art criticism and newspaper art critics aren’t champing at the bit to render judgments, are we really any worse off? Or are we just getting all we can ask and some of what we need from a mass communication medium? As one who believes that there must be some filtering system within our pursuit, I would prefer to see artists, curators, museums and galleries held to high standards. However, I do not believe that the pages of our newspapers are where this should happen. It should and does happen below the radar of the general audience so that what eventually gets seen and written about is more likely to raise their interest rather than increase their disdain. It’s called “self-policing” and we’re pretty good at right up to the point where money gets involved, but that’s another story.

*(See “Art Forum Versus Kramer,” The New York Times, January 4, 1976 and “Muddled Marxism Replaces Criticism at Artforum,” The New York Times, December 21, 1, 1975.)
If you would care to give The Visual Art Critic a full read, download it for free online at www.najp.org.