Fantasy Island

About six months ago, perhaps longer, we were forwarded an email that had been written by the artist Mathieu Gallois and which had been cc’d to perhaps 30 or 40 people in the Sydney art scene. The gist of the mail was that there wasn’t enough ‘good criticism’ in the Australian art world and someone should do something about it. Gallois talked of Art & Text and celebrated the fact that it was once contentious, opinionated and trend setting. Art & Text had a good ten years at the top of its game but the magazine didn’t last long after it left Australia for the West Coast of the USA, where it went on to become over designed and irrelevant to Australian art. It eventually went out of business. Gallois wanted someone to buy the Art & Text masthead, relaunch it and everything would be wonderful. He’d been in ‘talks’ with ‘people’ at the Australia Council and apparently their response had been ‘supportive’.

The purpose of Gallois’s email was unclear. What did he want the recipients of the email to do? Put up the money for an already-failed business venture? Lobby the Visual Arts and Crafts Board to support yet another magazine? We didn’t keep the email and we’ve regretted it ever since; it was as pure an act of art world whinging as you are ever likely to find – please, someone must do something! PLEASE!

We were intrigued when we heard that there was going to be a talk convened by Gallois at the Museum of Contemporary Arts’ Discussion Island nights where notables in the world of visual arts publishing would get together and discuss just what is wrong with art criticism. The guests were advertised as Robyn McKenzie, former editor of Like, Art Magazine, Alan Cruikshank, editor of Broadsheet in Adelaide, Lisa Kelly, artist, and Anna Waldman from the VACB. The chair of the event would be Blair French, associate director of the Performance Space.

The first shock discovery we made at Discussion Island at the MCA was that Blair French is a man. Perhaps we had him confused with Linda Blair (and the way her head could turn a full 360 degrees) but we had always thought that he was a she. Silly us. (Also, in the audience, were Julie Brown-Rrap (that’s Mike Parr’s sister) looking like a finely weathered tree, Russell Storer fit and well after his holiday and we saw a person who had an actual smiley-face for a face.)

The feeling in the art world in general is that ‘something’ is ‘wrong’ with art criticism, that there aren’t enough good magazines, that there isn’t enough ‘diversity’ in opinions, that artists work is being lost to the ages without proper documentation, that the glossy art magazines are too superficial and that criticism is either too flippant and aimed at lifestyle readers or too hagiographic and advertorial. Oh, and writers aren’t paid enough and young graduates aren’t given a chance to show what they can do. Despite the plethora of funded and independent magazines ranging from Eyeline, Art Monthly, Object, Photophile, State of The Arts, Art Monthly, Broadsheet, Real Time, Metro Screen to glossies such as Australian Art Collector, Art & Australia, Monument and Oxygen, it’ still not enough. This is the general view and we have to admit we often feel that way ourselves. But the question is, why do we feel that way?

The topic for the MCA’s panel was about this “state of art criticism” – a somewhat vague proposition – that French narrowed down to: how do you characterize the state of critical writing on visual arts in Australia?

Robyn McKenzie spoke about her experiences with Like, Art Magazine and its by-accident birth and ultimate demise at the hands of the RMIT. When the architecture faculty asked themselves why they were funding an art magazine they couldn’t think of an answer. The funding was pulled just at the moment the magazine was attempting to reinvent itself as a more populist magazine covering different areas of art practice while dipping its collective toes into pop cultural material like movies, music and tongue-in-cheek top tens. McKenzie is a low key but opinionated speaker and her dry-as-dust delivery belied the fact that she was about the only person on Discussion Island who could talk about the market, the arts sector and the perils of publishing from a tertiary institution with any authority.

While discussing art writing from the position of both an artist, occasional writer and a self-described ‘avid reader’, Lisa Kelly talked about the general consensus that there is a lack of generous, thoughtful and intelligent criticism. Referring to James Elkins book Whatever happened to art criticism? Kelly claimed that she recognised his description of the problem with art writing internationally applying to Australia as well. Unlike her fellow panelists, Kelly, as a reader, had no vested interest in big upping her own career or publications – although she very modestly acknowledging her own efforts – and spoke of the emergence of semi-anonymous publications, both in print and on the web:

“I suppose the most the most obvious example of this is The Art Life, which is quite thrilling in it’s freedom of voice, a total breath of fresh air in its informality and intelligence of local art. Judging by the comments The Art Life receives there’s a real hunger for this kind of fearless criticism. [The blog] uses humour very heavily and effectively. But that this kind of writing is contingent on an anonymous position which is, I think, of some concern. They do joke about committing semi-anonymous career suicide to take this position. It comes back to that sense of creative freedom coming at professional expense. Still, as a reader I’m really excited at the emergence of these kinds of voices as a much needed compliment to more formal publications. Especially, the active role they are playing in criticising criticism itself. The Art Life is especially strident in that respect.”

The editor of Broadsheet, Alan Cruikshank started his allotment of time by declaring that he had little to say and that he warned Blair French in advance of thatfact. Then, on the plane from Adelaide to Sydney, he decided to put something down on paper. Perhaps if he’d just written “BOB” on a sick bag and left it in the toilets there might have been a bit of excitement, but instead Cruikshank was unprepared, had no special insights to offer, was dull and went on interminably. French, as the chair of the event, should have stepped in and stopped him but instead flattered and complimented Cruikshank and discussed how Broadsheet had allowed him [French] to be “cranky” in print! Well, whoopy-do!

The VACBs Anna Waldman was at the event as an official representative of the funding body and thus had very little to say except that, as far as she was concerned, the VACB was hitting all the performance measures it had set down for itself and she dutifully recited them. Waldman’s has a voice like a Viennese psychoanalyst and although she was… measured, her voice was hypnotic and soon we found ourselves drifting into a deep, deep sleep and thinking about how our fathers wouldn’t take us to the zoo when we were children…

One aspect of this ‘issue’ that was never seriously discussed in the entire 2 hours of Discussion Island was the fact that part of the ‘problem’ with art criticism in Australia is that it is generally very dull. Much of it is well meaning and displays a high level of education and knowledge, but very little of it is well written. As much as we dislike the opinions of John McDonald, we agree with the assertion that he can write. The same goes for Peter Timms (who was mocked by Cruikshank but also who admitted he hadn’t actually read Timms book but he had a “sense” of it), Benjamin Gennochio, Sebastian Smee, Peter Hill and even that poor old duffer Giles Auty. There aren’t many names you can put up from the non-conservative side of art writing – we think of Ted Colless and Rex Butler, Daniel Palmer can write, so can that nice young fellow from ACCA, Stuart Koop.

People who write for the art magazines are in large part made up of academics and curators who write about artists because they have a professional interest in them. Although they are paid small amounts compared to their day jobs, it’s a nice little value add to their careers and CVs. The other dominant strain of arts writing is a mixture of pseudo-academic and lifestyle journalism written by people who, like their counterparts in museums and universities, don’t need the money. Only about one quarter of all art writing is actually written by people who actually need to make a living from their journalism. As Cruikshank admitted, his magazine is paying 1993 Australia Council rates of about $300 a feature. For that kind of money, no wonder the pros stick to just a few magazines, leaving the rest to over-eager uni grads and academics.

Another major factor in this idea that there is something “wrong” with art criticism is that, despite the more than 30 magazines, countless catalogue essays and web sites, artists are still not happy. Gallois, sitting at the front of the audience, was asked by Blair French how he felt after everyone had spoken and he said two things: writers should be paid more and that there is a feeling that there is something wrong with art criticism in this country. We’re not sure if Gallois had been listening, but there are hundreds of opportunities for writers to write, and for readers to read. With no one actually reading all the magazines and literature on offer, the realisation begins to dawn that it’s the art world that’s the problem. On any objective level, the diversity and opportunity is there, but no matter what, people aren’t happy.

We wonder if Gallois went home happy or sad? As a pitch for funding, perhaps to show Waldman how much interest there is in doing something about this terrible problem, Discussion Island was a damp squib. One question from the floor rambled on about how there needs to be some sort of central repository for all knowledge about art writing, you know, a place where people can go and find out everything that’s going on. Anna Waldman commented, yes, I feel that way every day and so do we. We want more of everything and we want it now, but unlike the Uni student who asked the question and then happily admitted she didn’t know anything, we know you just have to go out and create it. As Christopher Hanrahan said from the floor, if you don’t agree with something, pick up a pen. And there’s always the web, anonymous or not.