Book Review
9/6/2008
Review of James Elkins What Happened to Art Criticism? (Chicago, Paradigm Press, 2003)
James Elkins’ book, What Happened to Art Criticism? lacks in size, but certainly makes up for it in deep thought provoking points. Elkins proposes his own interesting explanations for the last fifty years of changes in art criticism. For the first half of the twentieth century art critics were fiercely opinionated and presented their judgments with ambitious ferocity. Elkins suggests that contemporary critics have become more inclined to delineate from judgment and opinion and have moved toward just describing the artwork at hand. Like the old saying, “better safe than sorry,” contemporary critics seem to have taken it to heart.
In his first chapter, Elkins gives a broad view of art criticism in its current “worldwide crisis.” With its voice becoming weak and dissolving into the background of society, Elkins points out that despite the crisis, business is booming. Art criticism he says, is more widely practiced than ever. It attracts numerous writers and has worldwide distribution. Despite this, art criticism is completely ignored with readership unknown and unmeasured. Elkins calls it a fascinating mystery of change. How could art criticism change from being a passionate, historically informed practice to a huge massively funded, but invisible and voiceless practice?
The second and third chapters discuss the lack of unity and common ground. In chapter two Elkins evaluates the seven models of contemporary art criticism. They include the catalog essay, the academic treatise, cultural criticism, the conservative harangue, the philosopher’s essay, descriptive criticism, and poetic art criticism. The catalog essay serves to give academic reference. It is an informal commissioned piece usually written for a gallery that presents the artist and the work in a nonjudgmental light. The academic treatise takes an academic position and explains what the artist did and why it is significant. It answers the question, “Why should we care?” It presents a historical context to its criticism of the artists work. The conservative harangue is not only fun to say out loud at cocktail parties, but also serves to present the critical point that what is new is not always good. The philosopher’s essay presents the artwork as an example and answer to a logical and philosophic problem.
Descriptive criticism is not unlike the catalog essay. This style is written primarily for show reviews and gallery exhibits. Elkins presents seven sources for this writing style trend. They include: high rent galleries that force critics to conform to non judgment in order to be published; the power of the market in promoting certain styles; the proliferation of styles; reaction to Greenberg and a movement of first generation Artforum critics; a reaction to Greenberg’s modernism; a revival of Rezeptionsgeschichte, or the interaction of the viewer to the art, and the rise of the “institutional critique” criticism, which involves more of the production of belief as opposed to real judgment.
Finally, there is poetic art criticism, which constitutes an occasion for a creative writing experience. These seven writing styles serve to break up the doldrums of a society with forced and strict rules of engagement however, they also serve to cause crevices in the world of art criticism rather than sew the fractured world back together.
In chapter three Elkins presents seven more ideas or “unworkable cures” for the reform of contemporary art criticism and their individual supporters. The first “cure” presented is that criticism should be reformed by returning it to a golden age of apolitical formalist rigor. This is supported by such critics as Roger Fry, Christopher Reed, and Hilton Kramer. The second cure is that criticism lacks a strong voice. This idea wants a strong leading voice to emerge in the art world. It was supported by Diderot, Bauldelaire, Fry, and Greenberg to name a few. The third cure is criticism needs systematic concepts and rules. The fourth cure is that criticism should be more theoretical. The fifth cure is that criticism needs to be serious, complex, and rigorous. This cure is supported by many different people and groups such as the October and Artforum critics, Thomas Crow, and Rosalind Kraus. The sixth cure is that criticism should become a reflection of judgments, not the parading of judgments. The final cure is that critics should occasionally take a stand or have a position. They should take a stance and defend themselves accordingly. Elkins, while spending a substantial amount of time on these “cures,” does not tend to believe that any of them will work. With a knowing sadness, he admits all are doomed as unworkable cures to the problem at hand.
In his last chapter, Elkins finally gives the reader a fleeting look at his position on contemporary art criticism. He does not think it is necessarily a good idea to reform art criticism. He thinks that what counts is trying to understand why it has taken a flight from judgment and has moved toward description. He also states three qualities that most engage him about contemporary criticism: ambitious judgment; reflection about judgment itself; and criticism important enough to count as history and vise versa. In support of criticisms’ importance as history, Elkins ambitiously says, “In order for that to happen, all that is required is that everyone read everything. Each writer, no matter what their place or purpose, should have an endless biography and know every pertinent issue and claim. We should all read until our eyes are bleary…making sure we’ve come to terms with Greenberg, or Adorno…” (Elkins 85). While a very noble idea, its place is probably as the eighth unworkable cure in chapter three.
I believe Elkins has written a substantial book on the problems and possible solutions to art criticism. I tend to agree with him that a total reformation is out of the question. It would be a daunting and endless task and virtually impossible. Art criticism has weathered the storm of evolutionary change to become what it is today, and it will continue to do so despite critics’ misgivings of grandeur. Change may come in one of the forms presented in this book or it may take on an entirely new light. It is its own monster and it will continue to feed, grow and change.
No comments:
Post a Comment