Years ago, an artist friend complained to me about having applied for a fellowship for Latinx artists every year since its inception with no success. She believes that the program is too tied to the market and thus conservative, which, she argued, puts it at odds with meaningfully supporting artists of color. I suggested that she write an opinion piece about it, in which she could make a case for applying different standards of judgment for the selection of artists. Her response was that she would never “talk shit in public about our tiny resistance movement,” which initially bewildered me. On reflection, I realized that this idea of “talking shit” is based on a certain view of criticism that permeates the arts and its activist wing in particular, a perspective that is ultimately counterproductive.
Her assumption, which I think others share, is that a critical opinion piece must be diminishing or discrediting. That’s one-sided. Criticism can oppose; it can also cajole, provoke, consider, inform, and suggest. The general understanding of public critique is that it’s reductive, but it can also look to create an imagined future. More than being punitive or dismissive, public criticism can provide an opportunity to collectively look at a thing differently, and writing such a piece can be a collaborative venture. It can also be interrogative.
In writing a critical opinion piece, one might pose questions such as: What are the criteria currently used for judgment? Are these used consistently? What are the metrics for success? What have the artists who’ve been selected for these residencies gone on to do? Who is missing?
In the same conversation, my friend ended on the note of hoping that “more nationwide Latinx organizations will get funded by the big foundations.” Yes, hope “is the thing with feathers,” but it needs organized action to take wing. It’s not enough to hope. Successful social movements are built on labor, on organizing speech and action, and what compels artists toward some hopeful Shangri-La may be fear.
Denizens of the complexly socialized art scene live in fear of being ostracized or placed on blacklists, so we engage in whisper campaigns instead of confronting (with care) the people and institutions we think don’t quite get it right. Facing that fear might be liberating.
Recently, I wrote a critical review of an exhibition at the 8th Floor gallery. One of the curators, Lucia Olubunmi R. Momoh, reached out to me to push back on some of my analyses. That took courage, and I deeply appreciated being able to look at my review as the start of a conversation, not its end. But even better, what if Momoh had decided to reply to me in public, perhaps through commenting on the Hyperallergic site or writing an opinion piece of her own. Might others have benefited from the conversation? Can we plant trees whose shade we will not enjoy?
In 2018, I attended an “Expanding New York City Arts Leadership” program organized by Anthony D. Meyers, who aimed to discuss strategies and tactics for art administrators of color to manifest their visions and ambitions within majority-White contexts. I led a small breakout group of six or seven people. In it, a Latina attendee told the story of her coworkers subtly othering her by refusing to pronounce her name correctly. She volunteered her story to the group, and we came up with a few ways to thoughtfully advocate for herself and demonstrate that her name’s correct pronunciation was deeply important to her. After talking it through, I asked whether she wanted to try any of these tactics. She balked. She made excuses. I understood the challenge of speaking up, but this seemed like a clear way to resolution. Later, I surmised that she just wasn’t ready to let go of her pain. Sometimes we have been marginalized for so long that we internalize that exile and struggle to imagine ourselves living otherwise. But we can.
We imagine artists to be courageous explorers. They can be and might lead on this issue. Obeying the unspoken standard against critiquing those in your circle makes us jaded, reliant on hope, less able to enact real change. It’s a cliché, but a useful one: Be the change you want to see in the world.
I like discussion very much. In general, my very long time experience is that any response to reviewing is very rare. (Unless there is an error of facts.) But now and then it happens!
It was good to see that you’re still bringing up this issue, since I very much liked the piece you first wrote a few years ago, and then Cathy’s blog post about it.
https://talkingpicturesblog.com/2020/07/30/seph-rodneys-great-mistakes/
Keep up the good critiquing of critiquing!
I am so glad you chose to revisit this topic because if ever we were in a time when thoughtful criticism is required, this is it. Sadly, too many artists, especially those in marginalized groups, think silence is an option where injustice exists. They go along to get along hoping the gatekeepers will allow them access for good behavior. This strategy rarely works and the broken system simply prevails.,
I am a white female painter/drawer and have very little patience for the critique that we know, historically, as finding flaws or making mountains out of molehills of grandeur. Say what you see, what you feel, and think about how the work relates to being human. I have heard way too many times some evaluation about the work’s consistency in panel reviews for grants. (And yes, inconsistency by the panel.) Why not fund a person whose work is at an exploring stage? Applying for grants is not the same as applying for exhibits. And the gatekeepers need to open the gates all the way.
I see a huge lack of critiquing in the current art world. It’s as if everyone is afraid to critique the quality of a work lest they offend the person. However I have always felt a good honest critique helps me to grow as an artist. I miss reviews of shows where there is an actual critique of the work. I feel all of our art could benefit.
I believe it’s a particularly difficult time for critical thinking to be taken objectively, particularly when art work has been considered within a social/political context. Provocative insights are open to vitriolic pushback – both from host institutions and the reading public. There is, as yet, no useful strategy for promoting conversation vs. reductive responses and the feared blackballing. That said, I agree, that considered, informative, and suggestive conversation is the only way forward. I just don’t find it happening at this moment in time.
Thank you for this article. It gives me encouragement for the next time I question or challenge, for one example: why do museums, schools, etcetera continue the Frida Kahlo cult? Is this the only “Mexican” artist who is female? Or is it easier to fetishize a female who (yes she is a good painter), often portrayed herself as a victim? The feedback was that I was a traitor to the feminist cause. I do feel “identity” is overly emphasized sometimes, and that can lead to automatic alignment with the “majority” minority, rather than actually questioning, thinking and speaking without fear of being labeled “anti”.
Thank you Jo! I agree with every point you’ve made.
Phew! I am glad to know I am not alone.
Excellent article and discussion much needed, especially in this 21st C. I used to read the main art mags until the capitalist pragmatics of “real” life forcibly marginalized that esoteric realm. I mourn the loss of the twice monthly ArtWeek that used to exist serving West Coast artists with long distance community. The funneling down of venues, opportunities, income and time to think, make and exhibit visual art, has been incremental and eviscerating over the last 40 years. As shop and physical trades, (even physEd and handwriting) education has been removed from public schooling and curriculum stripped down to tested 3Rs on RF radiating, alienating screen-cubicles, so has public access to a wide spectrum of human life experiences deserving attention. While everyone is expected to conform or made to conform through incremental austerity, the truth is we live in a drastically stripped down reality engineered by capitalist plutocracy. This includes the art world. But a constant there, that has remained, has been elitist snobbery-arbitrary decision making by it’s ever-shrinking gatekeeper, management class.
[I do want to point out that, thank Universe, imo Hyperallergic has been a wonderful exception to the above, offering artists a valued portal to art world developments and ideas. Having this discussion here is an example of a pathway to a better, more evolved future Public Commons!]
I think discussion on above topic most artists avoid, because like kryptonite, you’re career would be over. I’m 73 and have experienced, in the “art” and “real” world, enough to know what comes and goes, and why. The capitalist world, and it’s art world, have not evolved from selfish profiteering, to serving the social needs of humanity. It’s stunted. Stunted by wealthy tailwinds and no social headwinds it acknowledges. It cultivates fashion statement commodities for the rich, over enriching cultural and aesthetic experiences for the public. 99% of holdings remain in the basements of large city museums at $25 admission fees, with dictated conditions of access. Contemporary galleries are almost exclusively in NYC or the top 10 urban areas, with near zero presence or knowledge of, by the bottom 90% of society, there or outside these cities.
Meanwhile, art criticism has largely become a passive cheerleading variety overrun with postmodern acceptance of truly specious anything presentation. The decision making of what gets shown and what gets grant funding does not serve the social needs of humanity. It serves the ego needs of capitalism and it’s wealthy winners, including the State. Not artists, the art community or society as a whole. It’s time for a change.
Mostly, I make social art. Provocative art to promote thought, discussion and interest in a more evolved-out-of-dystopia Life. Much, as a majority i would say, of art world gatekeepers just walk away from art like this, that they have not seen or have a way to place within their commodity and ideologically acceptable ecology. And places to show work like this are shrinking daily. Many visual artists in 2025, are indeed marginalized-homeless.
Critique was essential in a learning environment. Instructors, artists, viewers and critics all benefited by doing together and exchanging perceptions and ideas. My learning & living environment of the late 70’s was low cost survivable (by month: tuition $80, rent $150, s-loan $208) on a part time job. Now socio-economic conditions have become a neo-Gilded Age where only the well funded, or incredibly lucky, can practice for any length of time, without near insurmountable obstacles.
Both society and the art world need a change to a more egalitarian widely distributed model. Spaces to create and show in all localities, with access to contemporary and historic works, discussion and social spaces, not dependant on entrepenureal profiteering and management biases. And places like here are great places to begin the evolution.