History of Art and Art Criticism: A System in Crisis

American, British and Canadian Studies Journal, 2014

Starting from the presupposition that art and art criticism in the United States of America are closely linked and that the very meanings and receptions of art works have been reflected by various writings in the field of art criticism, this first part of a comprehensive study on the topic attempts, on the one hand, to divide the historical evolution of American fine arts and art criticism into several distinct periods, and on the other, to evaluate the major directions of art criticism by considering its historical periods as being markedly ideological or cultural, as the case may be. Thus, considering the approximately 150 years of historical accomplishments of art criticism in the United States, I will argue that the starting point of American art criticism is visibly cultural, while the next two periods are characterised by ideological art criticism, noting that the ideological orientation differs in the two time frames. The fourth moment in the evolution of art criticism marks ...

In 2001, art critic and historian Benjamin Buchloh declared the ‘death of art criticism’ during the October journal’s roundtable, “The Present Conditions of Art Criticism.” The following decade witnessed a plethora of articles, conferences, and books devoted to the crisis of criticism–all efforts thus far seem to have failed, the crisis has not been abated. Art criticism is decaying and our historical moment is not only “post-modern” but also “post-critical.” At the same time, art writing has become such a broad spectrum of “literature” that neither author nor reader take it seriously¬–the writing is often ironic, filled with joyful and mediocre immediacy, and not to mention, a proud ahistoricism. We are also told, however, that this is a great moment for culture: writings on film, music, and art are to be found everywhere you turn or click. The Internet has allowed the democratization of cultural production: anyone can upload a film to YouTube or a track to MySpace–everyone has a voice, everyone has a blog, and everyone is a critic. Under quickly changing conditions, then, what are the present tasks of aspiring art critics? This undertaking is multilayered but it must begin with an understanding the crisis of criticism in its contemporary and historical expressions. In the first two sections, the thesis surveys the symptoms of the illness: how art criticism has been unable to grasp the swift changes in the art world and how the curator, the dealer and the collector have replaced the critic as the main mediators between art and its public. The third section outlines how contemporary art criticism, largely anti-Greenbergian and anti-modern, suffers from “the flight from judgment.” In the fourth section, I explain how Art criticism was displaced with the emergence of art practices in the 1960s that thought to incorporate criticism into the work itself. All are important, and often contradictory considerations when seeking to understand the demise of art criticism, but all are not equally important for the task of resurrecting and redeeming criticism. The final and concluding section will dedicate itself to the future of criticism in light of its history. It will investigate and introduce possible paths for the reconstitution of art criticism, suggesting possibilities existing in the overlooked history of art criticism.

Journal of Art Historiography, 2023

Abstract: This essay reviews Stephen Moonie’s book Art Criticism and Modernism in the United States (2002), which contributes to the steadily growing field of art-historical research into art criticism. Until recently, art criticism has received scant attention partly because such writing is often considered ‘literary’, ‘unacademic’, or constitutively defined by ‘subjectivity’ in comparison to its siblings art history and aesthetics. Moonie’s book focuses upon North American art criticism from the late 1940s to the early 1970s, particularly the writings produced in and around Artforum in dialogue with Clement Greenberg’s difficult legacy. Such criticism dovetailed with developments in contemporary painting, sculpture, and film, but also presented itself as avowedly more intellectual, philosophically engaged, and self-reflexive than other forms of art criticism current at the time. This review, therefore, examines how Moonie elucidates this emergent mode of art criticism, particularly in light of its recourse to philosophical concepts as interpretative aids. An advance copy was published on the Journal of Art Historiography blog and will be officially published in issue 29, December 2023

The 2009 art market crash has prompted an apparent renaissance of criticism. Prices for artists without much critical or curatorial acclaim (e.g. Currin, Hirst, Yuskavage) have fallen. Gallerists are eager to imbue their works with cultural capital. Through providing this in the form of critical acclaim, the critic can contribute to this cultural capital. However, this implies the full instrumentalisation of art criticism: the market emerges as a new master narrative. Critique has been revived at the cost of an independent critical viewpoint, the victory is Pyrrhic. The critic cannot autonomously constitute the symbolic value of a piece, and is again a bit-player in a piece staged by the market. Criticism can thus survive in academia, as poet-critic practice or as contributor to symbolic value. The modern or postmodern ideal of the independent critic must be abandoned. Criticism is therefore indeed in a crisis.

Journal of Aesthetic Education, 2002

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

JOURNAL OF NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, 2022

Art history and art criticism are included in the humanities, which aim to explain and comprehend human behavior and intellectual endeavor. The main methodological instruments used in both areas are based on hermeneutical heritage. Understanding (verstehen), which seeks to give these deeds or works of art meaning, is their main analytical category. An art historian examines and integrates creative works within a wider intellectual and social framework, in contrast to an art critic who examines the ideals linked with artistic achievements. Their functions are not always clear-cut since analysis, understanding, interpretation, and assessment regularly occur in the study of both areas. The approach of the art historian should have a scientific character and aim for objectively valid formulations, whereas the critic frequently assumes the additional role of philosopher or theorist of art. The critic should give equal consideration to subjective factors and acknowledge international artistic values. In this essay, I examine the various degrees of subjectivity inherent in the approaches used by art historians and art critics. Although I address the categories of artistic values (aesthetic, moral, and cognitive) in accordance with their subjective application as well as their role in the comprehension and assessment of art, I focus on the procedures and terminology used by both categories. I'm adamant that art history and art criticism are complementary disciplines since the former encourages the latter's in-depth and important assessments.

When 1 entered graduate school in the history of art at the Institute of Fine Arts in New York in the early 1950s, theory was the farthest thing from my mind. In fact, for me and for many of my cohorts, theory was a rather suspect concept, tainted as it was by theories of race (which dassified human beings hierarchically) and theories of quality (which dassified works of art hierarchically). We read the dassic works of the founding fathers, especially Aloïs Riegl and Heinrich WôlfHin (always on our own, never as part of courses). But no one sought to follow them in their quest for the foundations of the discipline-an enterprise that in any case seemed uninspiring compared with the joy and excitement of working with the "objects." Moreover, theoretical structures risked limiting the range and depth of individual creativity, or even collective creativity in the case ofregional or period styles.

Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History, 2020

Ars Kriterion E-Zine, 2021

Latin America has lived submerged in a historical crisis of which the pandemic and its intellectual aftermath are just one more chapter, because of a perennial complaint about the absence of systematic, professional, and independent art criticism. But when this has taken place fulfilling these parameters, the general response has been to discredit it and restrict its spaces. The signal that the mass media has been sending, globally, since the beginning of the century is "withdrawal." Both the media, artists and the market have tacitly proclaimed the end of art and criticism as we knew it and restricted both commentary and professional criticism. The objective of this paper is to ponder the following questions amid the aftermath of the current crisis: Should art criticism exist or not in contemporary art? What role does art critic play in times of crisis? And then on what bases should it be articulated? Through a critical review and analysis of the history of art criticism in Latin America the author unveils the crucial role of this literary form to bring deeper understanding and clarity on the disruptive role of art and its critique amidst cultural crises and its intellectual aftermath. The general ambivalence in official Latin American cultural circles towards professional and independent art criticism has fostered the proliferation of confused and mediocre artistic expressions that are not discussed in the public sphere. Art critic and scholar, Juan Carlos Flores Zúñiga, explains in this paper an intellectual consequence of this phenomenon, in the context of the current crisis, is that art and culture are not a priority in the public and private spheres. This paper was accepted and presented at the 53rd AICA Congress in Turkey, on November 26th, 2021.