February 11, 2004
Provisional and informal comments on Saltz, Johnson, and Elkins
Last week two reviews were published in our weekly New York criticism outlets that to my mind failed in ways that may be instructive for other critics (i.e., myself). The first is "Modern Gothic,"Jerry Saltz's review of "Scream," a ten-artist group exhibition at Anton Kern. (Which, you may know, was accompanied by a small brochure to which I contributed an essay.) The other is Ken Johnson's Friday New York Times review of "Mute!," a group exhibition at Guild & Greyshkul. (Scroll down: it's the second review at that link.)
From the first sentence (or maybe even the title) of Jerry's piece, we can see that the exhibition is little more than a shell for his ideas about the current trend toward the gothic in work by young artists. Granted, his ideas are interesting and worth thinking over, as usual. But by the end, he has only dedicated a little more than ten percent of his column to discussing the artists and the work on view, noticably shortchanging a few of them in the process. He spends the majority of the column elaborating the Why of the Gothic revival and in the process neglects the What. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Johson's review, which seems little more than rote description of the five artworks on view. He begins: "'Mute,' an exhibition of five artists associated with Lisson Gallery in London, provides little visual excitement but offers some more or less droll approaches to words and sounds," then describes each work in the show. He neglects to investigate any of the questions brought up by the exhibition. What are the implications of a visual art exhibition with little visual excitement? How does sound fit in to the larger ouevre of these Conceptual artists? How does this exhibition compare with the curator's summer 2003 Lisson Gallery "themed" Conceptual art exhibition? (Poorly, to my mind.) I could go on, but suffice it to say that I cannot grasp Johnson's take no matter how closely I read between his lines.
Earlier I posted the conclusion to James Elkins's What Happened to Art Criticism?: In short, the critic that engages him is ambitiously judgmental, self-aware enough to continuously call into question that discernment, and well-informed enough to write words that will stand the test of time. I'm not so sure that either Saltz's or Johnson's review will stand the test of time. Saltz calls into question his judgments and is very keenly aware of what's going on, but doesn't tie his ideas to anything that will keep them from floating away as time passes. Johnson makes almost no judgement and seems hardly more informed than anyone who read the press release, though perhaps his piece will persist deep in the extensive bibliographies of the individual artists.
Elkins's suggestion for critics is that "everyone read everything...until our eyes are bleary." Obviously for reviewers working on tight deadlines and with limited word counts, jumping head first into the lake of information about our subjects is not always possible. There must be a balance between extreme focus--Johnson's narrowminded look at exactly what was in the show and nothing further--and the too-broad view presented by Saltz. I think what may work best is something more selective than Elkins's admonition. Imagine an exhibition we must review as a pebble dropped in that lake; to write successfully we may only need to pursue its ripples. No review of one exhibition or artist necessitates knowledge of all of art history. Dutch historian Johan Huizinga, whose comments on historiography are applicable here, said "The past as such without a further qualification means nothing but chaos." But take note: I haven't read more than five pages by Huizinga in my life, and that quote is pulled from an essay by E.H. Gombrich. (Let's take selectivity a step further: the Gombrich essay is from a book titled The Essential Gombrich.) The criticism that I'd most like to see reaches for Elkins's (rather utopian) aspirations, acknowledges limitations, and hovers somewhere near the mid-point between Saltz's "Modern Gothic" and Johnson's "Mute!"
I'll keep my eyes peeled and post examples when I find them.