The Most Frequently Asked Question in Chelsea These Days

It's refreshing actually. No longer is the first question that people you haven't seen for a while ask, "Heard of any new gallery closings?" or "How's your traffic been?" Although it comes a close second, even "Seen any shows I shouldn't miss?" has been supplanted. No, the most frequently asked question in Chelsea these days seems to be "What on earth is Jerry Saltz doing on Facebook?" (OK, so it's in a close race with "Did you read that Roberta Smith article?")

Not everyone is a fan of the extraordinarily generous dialog Mr. Saltz is leading on the social network. He's ruffling feathers, and more than once I've disagreed with him, but as I noted back in this thread (excuse the double-self-reference):

Back in my first post of the year, where I wrote about my predictions for the art world, I had noted:

I suspect publications with only one art critic will benefit greatly from those critics also voicing their opinions via other, perhaps less-formal channels, to permit these (non-edited) critiques to balance out their formal contributions. Blogs are one such channel, but other (less time-consuming channels) are being used effectively by writers for this as well.

It was Jerry I was thinking of then and he's only getting stronger in the medium, in my opinion. I'm not sure whether this has, as C.P. predicted, "less to do with hierarchy," but it certainly feels fresh and exciting.

And it still feels very fresh and very exciting. In breaking down the barriers between critic and audience, Saltz has opened up a new chapter in the dialog in New York and beyond, I suspect. I keep telling Jerry when I run into him that what's he's doing feels nothing short of revolutionary. Like all revolutions, though, this one is messy and spawning its own counter-revolution in some quarters. Twitter and Facebook comments galore are more and more openly taking swipes at the Pied Piper of the Online Art Community. Anyone could have seen that coming, though. When you make yourself that accessible, people don't feel as insecure about disagreeing or objecting to your opinions or methods.

Not that I don't understand some of the objections mind you.

Jerry's calling the new director of one of New York's most important alternative art museums a "dick" was a bit shocking to read. Then again, that's nothing compared to what many people are willing to say within their circles about a wide range of art world authorities behind their backs all the time, though. So the question becomes to my mind, if you expand your circle online and truly wish that community and the dialog within it to have integrity, how much should you still edit yourself? Is there a total number of people you shouldn't say such things to? Are any "public" forums simply off limits for such talk? For an art dealer, yes...there are indeed limits. But for a critic?

In today's (yesterday's? I can't tell anymore with online stories) New York Observer, there's a profile of Jerry and how he's using Facebook. Here's a snippet:

Mr. Saltz’s Facebook page has become a phenomenon, having undergone an unlikely, organic transformation that turned it from an inconsequential personal profile into a highly trafficked, widely read discussion board about the art world. Populated by dedicated and predominantly serious-minded artists, curators, gallerists and assorted art-world denizens—many of whom check the page compulsively and post their thoughts multiple times a day—the page has become home to a vibrant community and an essential extension of Mr. Saltz’s practice as an art critic.

and

One of Mr. Saltz’s primary stated goals for the page—which he views as an experiment—is a desire to demystify the art critic in the eyes of readers and artists.

I doubt many people in the art world wouldn't applaud both those goals (demystifying the art critic and creating a vibrant online community). However, there is growing dissent among some folks (oddly enough, mostly other people who also use social networks and the Internet to promote themselves and or their work, but then again, if they weren't, how would I read them?) and whispers in Chelsea about exactly what Jerry notes in the Observer article would not be a good outcome:

"I’d like to think I haven’t jeopardized my credibility,” he said. “If I thought that was happening, I would stop, because it’s much more important to me to be an art critic than a Facebook … thing. If I started seeing people say, ‘Well, you can’t listen to him on the Whitney Biennial because he called Klaus Biesenbach a four-letter word,’ then I would say no, it’s not worth it to me at all. But right now, it’s a blast.”

In fact, one of Jerry's long-time online nemeses (see this or this or this), my pal Tyler Green, posted on Facebook just last night :

Jerry Saltz to the NYO on his Facebook activities: "I'd like to think I haven't jeopardized my credibility."

Although Tyler doesn't elaborate, I took that to suggest he disagrees. I have to say, as much as I'm sure both writers are highly annoyed with the other, their very public disagreements are VERY entertaining to read. And illuminating, which is their saving grace.

To make what could be a very long rant short (and I know, I have a dog in this fight), I tend to side with those who want things more messy, with fewer rules, when it comes to the art world. Not on the business side of things, mind you, but on the opinion and/or creative side of things. Rules are OK, if only to so there's something to break, but rigidity is counterproductive in this realm.

In other words, I LOVE how fierce and messy Jerry's Facebook dialog has become. I understand those who feel it's risky for his credibility, but as with artists or writers or anyone creative, the proof is in the pudding. This piece on the Tino Sehgal show at the Guggenheim was simply priceless and written long into Mr. Saltz's journey into the heart of the online community jungle.

What on earth is Jerry Saltz doing on Facebook? I'm not entirely sure and, I suspect, neither is he. I, however, hope he continues doing it.

UPDATE: C-Monster smartly critiques the Observer article.