Reviews of Rafacz, The Suburban

This week on ArtSlant: Chicago, Erik Wenzel heads out to The Suburban in Oak Park to see a tribute to a recently passed artist, and then visits Andrew Rafacz in West Loop.  Then he recommends a book by an artist-turned-porn star. Seriously.

Click here to go to ArtSlant: Chicago

This Week on ArtSlant: Chicago

This week on ArtSlant: Chicago Robyn Roulo visits Corbett vs. Dempsey to see “Big Youth” and writes about some of the standouts there, then heads to the super new ebers|B9 apartment gallery to see more new work there and reflects on the advantages the current apartment gallery movement has. Finally it’s over to the MCA for some free jazz on their terrace on Tuesdays (and free admission to the museum).

Check it out: http://www.artslant.com/chi/main

This Week’s Words

This week on ArtSlant I review the Buckminster Fuller show at the MCA, Kathryn Born critiques the critics: http://tr.im/l9Ut

Chicago’s Mainstream Art Coverage Reduced to Zero

On April 22nd the Chicago Tribune announced it was cutting 53 positions in its newsroom.  And according to the Chicago Reader blog “News Bites” one of those let go is the Tribune’s only art critic, Alan Artner.  That’s leaves absolutely no one reporting on Chicago’s vibrant and massive art scene in our daily newspapers or other mainstream media.

I haven’t always agreed with Artner’s commentaries or criticisms, but it’s important for the Tribune to cover the art scene here in Chicago. Chicago has a massive visual arts community that is dynamic and active on all levels, from local apartment spaces to international exhibitions.  The city of Chicago is also increasingly marketing itself as a center of culture, particularly linked to the international scene.  This has been crucial in our Olympic bid.  An indication of our internationalism is we have both the Cultural Center and Millennium Park currently featuring contemporary Chinese artists (it’s even notable that the dual timing was coincidental).  And yet despite the city government’s growing emphasis on the arts and Chicago’s massive culture scene, Chicago’s newspapers have pulled away from culture coverage.

Ironically, the elimination of Artner was accompanied by this staff memo from Editor Gerould Kern: “Our thinking was driven by the Tribune’s goal to be the Chicago region’s top destination for news and information and grow especially in the digital space. . . [we must] cover the Chicago area better than anyone else across all of our media.”  Despite the popularity and importance of visual art in Chicago, and in the minds of Chicago’s citizens, the Trib has effectively and completely withdrawn from visual arts reporting.

In an era when newspapers are struggling and folding all over the country and looking for ways to reinvent themselves, committing to more arts coverage rather than less seems an obvious and easy way to go.  An increase in cultural reporting would be an easy way for a newspaper to gain a particular identity and voice.  In addition to regular gallery reviews, there could be comprehensive looks at the city’s cultural programming finding crossover interests between institutions or disciplines.  It would be an easy way to appeal to younger readers also, assuming there was a particular focus on emerging art and artists.  An increased focus on the visual arts would facilitate a logical move into cyberspace also, as both easily accommodate images.  The move to the web is something newspapers have voiced a desire for (even in the above memo from Kern) but seem confused on how to do it.  Oddly Christopher Knight’s “Culture Monster” blog on the Los Angeles Times site is well done and seems popular, but was not followed here in Chicago, despite the fact that both papers are owned by the same parent corporation.

Chicago is really the latest casualty of arts coverage, though one may hope it could lead the way revitalizing cultural reporting.  As Chicago reinvents itself as a culture capital it would only make sense that its media follow the play, but they haven’t and it’s disappointing to see Chicago’s mainstream arts coverage decline to nothing.

The Critic in the 21st Century (Newspaper)

Earlier today I wrote about Alan Artner’s article on minimalism from last month and quickly received a response from Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes, the author who prompted my post in the first place. Green brings up a good point: that the role of the critic is to render opinion, not to educate. I agree that the critic’s primary role is to give professional judgment of the merits of artwork, however, I think that the role of the critic, particularly a major newspaper’s art critic, cannot be limited to handing down verdicts on art. In the 21st century we are witnessing the further evolution of the critic, the emergence of a multivalent critic.

With newspaper subscriptions dwindling and art usually (and unfortunately) cast as a subcategory of Entertainment, the newspaper critic must find new ways to remain relevant to the audience. This is imperative, else art criticism in newspaper ceases altogether, which would be a true tragedy. Relevancy doesn’t mean pandering to the public, it means addressing the perceived wants and needs of the audience. Why do people want read about art? I believe that people want to learn something about art primarily, whether that is through an essay piece or an opinion piece, and far secondarily they want a judgment.

For instance, people aren’t really reading the review of the Edward Hopper show to find out if the art is good or not, that’s a foregone conclusion, this is a nationally traveling show of a world famous artist containing iconic works like “Nighthawks” and “Chop Suey.” The verdict of “good art” is in before the review is written, what then is the critic to do? Give people the background knowledge that they should have for the show, in a word, educate. My speculation is that people pick up the paper thinking, “Hmmm well the Art Institute is having a show on Edward Hopper that I should see, I love “Nighthawks,” and I know he’s an important artist. I’ll read this review to learn more before I go to the show.”

I believe these changes to the critic’s role apply chiefly (probably only) to the art critics of major newspapers in major cities. The critical role is narrowed by these blockbuster shows and the refusal of the newspapers to cover anything but. Criticism for the emerging art, the gallery shows has migrated from the major newspapers to smaller newspapers (i.e. New City, F-News, The Chicago Reader, etc.) and blogs. It seems newspapers don’t want to take risks on anything and so safely stick to established taste. Ironically, taking risks on arts coverage seems like it could revitalize newspapers, turning them into cultural necessities, but they don’t see it that way I am sure, hence art has less space and sports as much as ever. As I see it, Artner is creatively expanding his role as critic. It is especially interesting that the article on Minimalism was written after conferring with the Museum of Contemporary Art about which art people have the most trouble understanding. Clearly, Artner is using the power of the pen to serve the public interest, giving them a little more information on minimalism, kind of like an art editorial. Newspapers try to educate their readers on a variety of issues: politics, history, sports, etc., why not art also? It also bears mentioning that the week of April 18th was a slow art week and the article appeared under the criticism-eschewing heading: “School of Thought: Art.”

Art criticism is still alive and well and someday it will migrate back into newspapers, but I believe that this new kind of multivalent critic is also here to stay. People in the U.S. know so little of art and it’s being aggressively pruned out of the K-12 education to make way for math and science education. That said, it seems people want to learn more about art than ever before and increasingly the newspaper art critic will be looked to to fill that role, both by the public and the newspaper’s editor.