Bad Reviews and Better Responses: Open Thread
The post on Jerry Saltz's column led to a thread that focused for the most part on the love-hate relationship between artists and gallerists on one side and critics on the other. As will happen in such settings, comments began to border on the personal. To be fair, there's nothing more personal for most artists or dealers than the vision/POV expressed in an exhibition, so it's understandable that artists and gallerists take bad reviews personally, but doing so helps no one, not even momentarily, so I'd like to open a thread to share better responses to bad reviews than complaining to the critic or their editor. The only rule I'll impose is that names not be used. Critic A or Artist B or Dealer C, if you please.Over the years, I've heard many tales of other gallerists calling the editor of a publication to demand the head of a critic who penned an unfavorable review. Just so you know, the editor will have presumedly already read the review and approved its publication, so you're not going to find much sympathy going that route.
The bottom line about any bad review is that the critic is either right (i.e., making valid criticisms) or the critic is wrong (i.e., ill-informed about what they're critiquing or otherwise unqualified to do so). That second one is very difficult to prove, however, as the critic isn't writing for the artist or gallerist, but rather the public, and if the critic missed something important about the work, it's a pretty good indication the general public may as well, meaning the critic will still have served their public well with their assessment.
There are, of course, good critics and bad critics. I have my favorites, as I'm sure do most of you, but the reasons I like them would probably change on a dime were they to ever pan an exhibition in my space that I loved. But the truth of the matter is, most of the ones I like wouldn't take my feelings about that into consideration, nor should they. I refuse to show artwork I don't like just to please some other faction of the art world (and I've been approached, believe me), and critics should refuse to praise any artwork they don't like despite similar pressure. Moreover, artists should refuse to create work they don't like as well, and there's certainly plenty of pressure to do that.
So essentially, all of us (artists, gallerists, and critics) are in the same boat. We're all struggling to do our part of all this as well as we can and stick to our convictions. That doesn't mean our convictions are always right, but it doesn't matter really. Being right or wrong is something you can openly change directions on, being a sell-out isn't.
My approach to bad reviews is to stay calm (which for a red-headed German-Irish Taurus, isn't easy, let me tell you), consider the critique after I've cooled down, assess whether it's valid or the critic was totally off base, and drafting a professional, objective response, including admitting where I thought the critic was right. Whether I send the letter or not really doesn't matter...the exercise itself turns the bad review into the most productive path I can get out of it. If I honestly feel the critic could benefit from the response, I'll send it, with compliments.
But under no circumstances does it make any sense to me at all to publicly challenge or offend the critic. Even if you suspect they wrote the bad review out of spite, what will you possibly gain from such actions? Momentary satisfaction followed by a reputation as a sore loser.
But that's me...feel free to share your own thoughts, but again, please no names...
posted by Edward_ at
10:12 AM
48 Comments:
Ed said, 'Being right or wrong is something you can openly change directions on, being a sell-out isn't.'
This is what I was trying to say yesterday regarding Critic A, who was accused of flip-flopping. I appreciate (and consider it a sign of intelligence) when a critic is willing to change his or her mind publicly, as long as there's good reason and s/he can back it up. As a matter of fact, I find sticking to one's convictions a little counterintuitive - talking and thinking about art is as much of a work in progress as making it.
As for selling out - tough call. Not always as obvious as it seems.
I actually appreciate it when a dealer or artist confronts me about a review. In some cases though (especially when it is an artist) it ends up confirming my earlier reaction to the work. Suddenly the artist is backpedalling to explain why it isn't so and working way too hard to cover the exposed nerve. It's like damage control. At other times it's a great discussion and we both learn something. Self knowledge is very important both for critics and artists and it really comes out in these exchanges.
A good critic has to risk being dead wrong ocassionally and the better artists and dealers recognize the worth in that precarious situation. I love it when I reverse my position on an artist. Sam Durant is the most recent example of a reversal, but that is mostly due to greater depth in his new work.
Wow.. More on this?? Ed.. Didn't this pet pony die already in yesterday's 70+ comments?
Inevitably... History Books are the only critics that matter!
I'm trying to switch it around Mike, from bad experiences to how to make the most of them.
History books don't benefit the artists during their lifetime often though.
True.. History Books benefit the collectors and really old rich artists!
hmmm... Bad experiences and how to make the most of them?? Sounds like your running a counseling/therapy center not an Art Blog. :-)
Happy Holidays!
Sounds like your running a counseling/therapy center not an Art Blog.
LOL...yeah, it moves that direction some times.
But no one wanted to talk about digital facades, so...
Happy Holidays to you too.
We need the therapy! Ed, you're performing a valuable public service.
I love this blog. Just discovered it a week ago and visit at least once a day. I appreciate the level of discourse. Okay, I really don't have anything to contribute. Just thanks.
ahh...shucks...
That's very kind of you Anon...thanks for delurking.
good or bad press, is still press :)
I totally agree Bambino...the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
PS...we have any wine at home?
Ed said: "The bottom line about any bad review is that the critic is either right (i.e., making valid criticisms) or the critic is wrong (i.e., ill-informed about what they're critiquing or otherwise unqualified to do so)."
I'm just wondering if this is really true. I mean, we all have our very subjective likes and dislikes, and they aren't necessarily right or wrong, they just are. For example, if I tend not to like painting with a flat paint quality, that's my view, it's neither right nor wrong. Doesn't a critic's personal taste play a role? Does that make them ill-informed or unqualified to critique the work?
I know this was to be a "positive response" thread; sorry to be slightly off topic. I think my question, though, could help (me, at least) to figure out how to respond to certain kinds of criticism.
I'm just wondering if this is really true. I mean, we all have our very subjective likes and dislikes, and they aren't necessarily right or wrong, they just are.
Thanks for clarifying that JC...I meant those comments where the critic panned something for reasons that indicate he/she didn't grasp the work, not personal aesthetic choices...any critic who can't see past their own tastes isn't worth much in my book. Not that their tastes aren't important...they very much are, just that any review that focused solely on a critic's personal taste belongs in their diary, not a publication for the public. There, their responsibility is to set a much broader context IMO.
Be yourself. Nobody is perfect so keep doing what you've been doing, keep thinking same way, you've been thinking. I agree that critics could destroy or increase your career future. But definetly not your personality. And I would hate myself if I would have to live and work for someone's criticism. Sorry. My life is my life and I dont owe anyone anything except myself. I'm here because of myself, and nobody's criticism.
Thats my point of view, as a non artist, non collector and non dealer person. Am I wrong?
I'd say your 100% right Bambino...it's what I was trying to say to the folks posting anonymously, afraid of repercussions from those they feel might help/hurt them some day...you actually position yourself lower in most folk's esteem if they can see you've cowered. Don't be beligerent, but if they're wrong, and you feel compelled to tell them so, do it openly. Let the chips fall where they may...just be sure you're right!
is that proper English "you've cowered"...I think I made that up.
Whooooaaaaah.
any critic who can't see past their own tastes isn't worth much in my book.
I would looooove to be able to use specific examples of specific critics here (trying to be a good blogger and follow the rules), but I think they're ALL affected by their personal tastes.
In fact, I think it's important for an artist to factor that in when reacting to a review. When you know where a critic is coming from (i.e., taste, slant, background) it can be easier to digest and form a reasonable response.
I definitely agree with JC here. Criticism is always from a subjective viewpoint, maybe more so with Art than in any other form of criticism. Perhaps this is because what is acceptable as good art is such a wide-open concept.
'Right or Wrong' assumes that there is some standard by which a critic can determine good art from bad. To my knowledge such a standard doesn't exist.
arghhh...let me spell it out.
"Right" or "wrong" needn't only apply to approval. And they most definitely can apply to reviews...if critic A indicates that Artist X is referencing Edward Weston when in fact Artist A is clearly referencing Sherry Levine referencing Edward Weston, for example, then Critic A is wrong. He/she missed the extra layer. That miss has nothing at all to do with their personal tastes or anything subjective...it has to do with a gap in their understanding of art history. And the rest of their comments about such work become less valuable.
With regards to seeing past personal tastes, what I mean, is if you personally can't stand color field painting, as a critic you should still be able to distinguish between a good color field painting and a bad one. If you hate color field paintings so much you can't concede there are any good ones, you shouldn't review color field painting exhibitions.
that should be "when in fact Artist X is clearly referencing Sherry Levine ..."
'That miss has nothing at all to do with their personal tastes or anything subjective...it has to do with a gap in their understanding of art history.'
Wha?! - That could be the result of any number of things: how long they spent looking; who talked to them about the show; but most importantly how well the artist is communicating...!! If we accept that criteria, then how do we justify it when a critic discovers who something that the artist never intended - a gap in the artist's understanding of their own work? No, it's just that different people will bring different things to the table. Nothing about it can or should be broken down into an equation.
From Art Soldier: "When you know where a critic is coming from (i.e., taste, slant, background) it can be easier to digest and form a reasonable response."
Yes, that's what I was getting at. I do wonder, though if we always know all the specific likes and dislikes of the critic. Some views might be well known and obvious, others not so much. It certainly helps (the artist's ego, at least) to have this kind of information when analyzing a negative review.
oops, that was supposed to be from jc!
The Levine/Weston issue brings up something (off-topic, I know, but related) that I've been thinking about. When an artist makes art that only a specialized audience can "get" (an audience who can tell the difference between Weston and Levine and can tell when an artist is referencing one rather than the other), is the artist making a conscious choice about who s/he is speaking to? When a non-art-knowledgeble viewer sees the work, he might see a Weston reference instead of a Levine. (An even larger group of people might not even know Weston, but one does have to assume a certain level of shared cultural references.) So is the artwork not "meant" for that viewer? In my own work I try to make the work exist on several levels, so that there is something there for the knowledgeable, but also something there for the viewer who knows nothing about the art world.
Isn't an art critic writing for a general interest magazine or newspaper doing the same, i.e. trying to speak to two different readerships at the same time?
o
I believe that great art is universal, that given a bit of time and distance you don't need specialized knowledge to be gripped by its presence. I think that good art is a bit like an onion, peel away one layer of understanding or perception only to find another. In this respect the critic may only initially reveal part of the work to the audience and as noted, it may not be something the artist was consciously addressing, rather it was a result of a subconscious link with the work or process.
The process of creating an artwork is complex and non formulaic, the critical process must be somewhat the same. The way an artwork is perceived is strongly affected by the cultural environment Since this changes in a fluid way I would expect the way an artwork is perceived would be fluid as well. Successful criticism may depend on both unraveling the mystery of the artwork and the way it inserts itself into the culture.
Or not.
I should add that by my last comment I wasn't in any way implying that we shouldn't look for a linear argument here - just that it's very, very hard to qualify something like art criticism, which operates in undeniably subjective territory no matter how you slice or dice it.
Subjective territory. Yes. But here in LA critic A is used as a benchmark. If A hates a show, I know it's worth seeing. If A loves a show, I don't bother making a special trip to see it. I've talked with others who feel the same about A.
Critics in NY, though, actually have some power. Prices go up, collectors pay attention. Here in LA a great review seldom matters.
That could be the result of any number of things: how long they spent looking; who talked to them about the show; but most importantly how well the artist is communicating.
Yes, yes, yes, BUT I wrote "Artist A is clearly referencing Sherry Levine referencing Edward Weston"
ed_: I love it when you go arghh...
In your Levine/Weston example you're talking about an instance in which a critic is making a fairly objective observation. While objective observations are often (and desirably so) a part of most art reviews, and can thus be evaluated in a more analytic way with regard to accuracy, I thought we were talking about the types of reviews where someone gets ripped (or, conversely, is given a glowing endorsement). These types of reviews (while they may also contain objective analysis) are mostly the product of opinion and are thereby heavily influenced by a critic's taste (whether consciously or not). In some cases this is gratuitously (and repulsively) done, but most of the time it simply can't be avoided.
All I'm saying is that if you read a lot of criticism you can start to sense patterns among certain critics. If critic A generally likes style A and you make work closely related to style A and yet critic A hates your work, then you probably have something to worry about. On the other hand, if critic A generally hates style B and your work is closely related to style B, then maybe you can use that information to make yourself feel a little better when critic A rips your B to shit. I could give lots of examples where this happens (by very well-respected critics).
but if the critic didn't see it, how clear was it to begin with? who decides? sometimes it's not at all obvious what an artist is doing UNTIL you read about the work. then how warped is our cobble-together perception of the concept?
not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand...
One other thought:
Nothing about it can or should be broken down into an equation.
I understand that artists dislike deconstructing their process (I don't understand why, but I'll leave that for another post)...but a critic shouldn't be given the same blank check. Breaking down the artwork is exactly what a critic does, and talking about a review in those terms is more than instructional, it's virtually required. If in writing a review a critic also produces poetry (so long as it still serves the purpose of teaching us about the work), that's great, but I wholly reject the idea that there needs to be some mystery to what they're doing...it's writing, it's totally deconstructable.
I thought we were talking about the types of reviews where someone gets ripped
I see the distinction, but I was trying to clarify why I use the terms "right" and "wrong" to describe reviews...and when it's appropriate to disagree with them. When it comes down to their overall assessment, unless they've made some error in their understanding that seems fairly clear to most art historically knowledgable people, then you're stuck accepting it.
So, back the idea of the thread...learn to change what you can, accept what you can't and recognize the difference...
gotta run, but more later...
Anecdote- Near the end of an art lesson, for a middle school student, the child and I were standing back and talking about the progress. This particular project had been very demanding but the child had always worked hard and had readily accepted the challenge. Frustration and confusion graced the surface of the work but the child carried a smile along with an eagerness to resolve the problems. Then the child’s parent walked in and began a dissertation on the weakness of the work. The child’s smile vanished. With a big grin I handed the parent a brush and politely said “I’m not sure what you mean will you show us please?” Fear stunned the parent, the child’s smile resurfaced and we have enjoyed consistent encouragement ever since.
My point is that anyone can successfully deliver negative criticism. It is “safe” and usually serves the critic more than anyone else (blown sunshine also has the same long term effects). The best critics can provide constructive observations and insight in a positive direction. They care about nurturing artistic development.
Nearly everyone can accurately tell you were they have been. Most people can tell you were they are. Fewer can tell you were they are going. And fewer still can tell you how they will get there. A very rare few can help others get there as well. Anyone can express their dissatisfaction. Who (artist, gallery or critic) aspires to be in the domain of “anyone”?
Criticism can prey upon the most adolescent of emotions. We all like to be talked about (artist & gallery) and we all want to be listened to (critic). Maturity for all is arrived at through candid, authentic responses to stimuli that moves us, along with the ability to both discern and endure candid authentic responses.
that's an awesome anecdote Lou...thanks for sharing
although I have to say that it reminds me of the adage: you don't have to be a gourmet chef to know bad cooking...
Who knows what makes a good critic. Certainly today that critic has to have a girth of knowledge as wide as the good ship--almost scholarly in proportion. But then we would be talking about a scholar, a philosopher, and not a critic. A critic usually takes a long time to generate. They need to be immersed, totally. They need to travel, constantly, even if only by foot. They need to learn. Yes! Learn to understand what they might not even believe in, or trust. Contradictory, they must, first and foremost trust their own judgment, or notice their impairment, and write about it.
Critic are writers. in fact, and the only fact, is what critics do is write. And usually writers write what impresses them, or irks them. They sculpt with words their impressions, observations, and indiosycracies.
To be a successful critic you need all this, and above and beyond, to communicate with a just and fair mind in language that can be understood by just about anyone. Wow, what an dumbfounding, impossible job that is.
This is, in part, what drives a good critic, though...
We live in a very different world from the one we were born in.
We should have many kinds of criticism. A critic, I don't believe, should be asked to cover the wide ground of art, non-art, design, and that which is growing into or out of any of the latent forms ready for use. A critic does their job, when what they know is delivered perfectly, in prose, and what they don't know is handed over for someone else, for their prose and cons.
I think, Edward, you are expecting too much that a critic pulls apart a work, or body of work with an Exacto knife unless that art was made with that tool mentioned.
I think, Edward, you are expecting too much that a critic pulls apart a work
As with artists, I have a great deal of respect for critics who do their jobs well. At the risk of pissing off lots of others, let me say I have immense respect for Roberta Smith, for example...she's extraordinarily good. I do expect a lot of them though. I expect that they see everything and do their homework and understand how to pull things apart and don't harshly review something unless they're fairly sure they understand where it fits within the dialog and art history in general. In other words, no lazy work. They wield incredible power...it's the least they can do in return.
What a load of horseshit. I couldn't get through most of the initial entry because I became bored with the topic. Critics can and do criticize because they have a job working for a paper or something. Remember the show called "critic as Grist" at Team back around 2002? I don't remember that shaking too many trees so I suppose the critic debate is not worth our energy. Lets try for something more original.
although I have to say that it reminds me of the adage: you don't have to be a gourmet chef to know bad cooking...
Forgive me Edward, I did not realize the fidelity of this discussion included “bad” cooking/art. I would offer that knowing “bad” cooking does not mean I know great cooking and that great cooking need not be gourmet. More to my point, knowing something tastes bad is very different than knowing why it tastes bad and if or how to fix it. This is what makes the cooking adage a Trojan horse- it is difficult to deny but once accepted it will undermine your point from the inside out. Thanks for your blog by the way.
I think there has to be many types of critics. This, I know, is unrealistic since it's not like critics are growing on trees. The critic that exacto speaks of I want no part of. Art, for me, is just an experience. It's seeing things. Putting it into some sort of art historical context is great, but it's not something I typically want to read about in the paper. Instead, I want interesting writing with a conviction of opinion. I want excitement. I want passion. I think this is where blogs come in. Sure, few art bloggers even approach the standards laid out by exacto, but man, some are great fun to read. To top it off, they help me experience art from afar or encourage me to go see it myself.
A must read for this topic is Terry Teachout's article in the Wall Street Journal titled "You, too, can be a critic." Here's the link (sorry for not hyperlinking it): http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113174284984295097-9ZWbjroExleCWcCdIwgdCnCIjrY_20061112.html?mod=blogs
I think it's good to alert a critic (diplomatically) who has clearly missed the boat in a review. I like reading the editorials in Art in America from artists who feel that a writer/critic has gotten something wrong-there's something to be gained on both sides.
Ed and Bambino, you are super duper. I know that is "off topic" but I just wanted to say so.
I couldn't get through most of the initial entry because I became bored with the topic.
And yet you still feel qualified to dismiss it as horseshit...intertesting...and telling.
I'll never understand why, given the millions of blogs out there, that someone will feel compelled to comment on something that bores them. Infuriates, saddens, entertains, them...etc, etc., I get...but bores? Why bother?
Feel free to move along...really.
MM, the feeling is mutual...
you're so much taller than you think.
Forgive me Edward, I did not realize the fidelity of this discussion included “bad” cooking/art.
I noted merely how it reminded me of it (on my return home from a holiday cocktail party, no less). Now that I see a bit more how your mind works (impressively, I'll note), I'll be careful to frame such observations moving forward...thanks again for the awesome anecdote.
not fair, not fair, E_ referred to a specific critic...
although I too have to admit having a soft spot for Roberta.
MM,
oxoxooxoxoxxoxo
not fair, not fair, E_ referred to a specific critic...
Well, yeah, but...but...
I asked folks to refrain from using names wanting to avoid letting criticism take on a life of its own...feel free to praise anyone by name
I have a question - I hope this is not a 'derail'. Do the critics you are referring to (i.e. NYC critics and/or big-time critics) interview the artist before they review their show? Where I am from it is my impression that the critics who write the reviews in the newspapers usually don't talk to the artist and I am wondering if this is common, and if you think they should or shouldn't, and why.
p.s. another big fan of your blog, although often it makes me feel that I am a total outsider to the 'real' art world, I still love it and learn from it.
Do the critics you are referring to (i.e. NYC critics and/or big-time critics) interview the artist before they review their show?
You'll have to keep tabs of the real inside scoop wrt this on Tyler's blog (he's excellent at pointing out conflicts of interest...which may not be what you're asking about here, but what you are asking about here touches on that), but in general, the answer is no. They don't.
We have seen critics review shows for artists we all know they know well, though. One has to take on faith that their prior familiarity hasn't colored their assessment.
I am wondering if this is common, and if you think they should or shouldn't, and why.
I don't think they should talk to the artist for a typical reveiw, no. For a feature article/review, of course, but not a review that in most reader's eyes is seen to be objective.
As much as I fall back on intent when deconstructing good vs. bad reviews (bad habit), I'm totally in the camp of folks who feel art should be accessible on many levels without having to read a thesis about it. It's good for critics to read the press release of course, but more than that and the fresh POV they bring to seeing the work would be lost.
There are probably a handful of exceptions to every point I made in the above comment though.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home