The “Extinction” of Art Criticism
In a review of Nathanial Kahn’s controversial 2018 film, The Price of Everything, artist and critic Robert Morgan begins by writing that the documentary brought to mind:
[T]he early 1980s when big money overtly entered the scene only to transform contemporary art into a full-fledged commodity industry.1
As Morgan sees it, the confluence of art and money on this scale has led to major “oppositional mayhem,” and I would add, a clash of values. Art and money have always been at odds, often explosively, particularly when money has the upper hand, which is nearly always. But Morgan’s real concern here is the plight of qualitative, or what I would call, effective art criticism in light of the onslaught of investment strategies that have basically gutted the soul of the art world. Morgan further wonders:
[A]s to how major promotional and investment strategies got so quickly involved with artists across the board – mostly emerging or blue chip, usually ignoring less-known mid-career artists – to the extent that the terms of qualitative criticism that formerly applied to works of contemporary art would soon become extinct.2
Morgan is making an important connection here between lesser-known artists, presumably those forgotten artists making exceptional art and art criticism that has merit. The two go hand-in-hand. Obsessing over how all this came to be is a bit of a red herring, better, it seems, to train our attention on what we can do to save or revitalize both contemporary art and art criticism under current circumstances. Given that Morgan wrote this piece in 2018, at perhaps the height of the investment frenzy in the arts, he can be forgiven for lamenting the potential demise of his vocation. However, I take exception with the implied assumption that interest in effective or good art criticism is or is about to become obsolete, because as long as artists continue to make thoughtful and engaging art inside or outside the art world there will also be thoughtful and engaging art critics, provided that artist and critic can find each other.
There is a world of difference between the notion of the “extinction” of effective criticism as applied to contemporary art and the dismissal or censure of such criticism, instigated primarily by those with vested interests in whatever art is currently fashionable (and profitable). Fully engaging and thus exceptional art is still being made, mostly on the fringes, and insightful art criticism is still written even if the venues that would do both justice seem nonexistent, and their audiences, at least for now, miniscule. It’s important to understand that the power of the status quo is not absolute, that the “dumbing down” of culture will never penetrate everywhere. There will always be artists who think critically and critics who think creatively, as well as artist/critics like Morgan who wear both hats, and audiences, however small, that understand and appreciate these artists and critics and continue to seek them out. Lamenting the lack of serious venues for non-affiliated art and criticism might seem like needless hand wringing, and yet, the moral and/or intellectual health of a society is surely as important to its well-being as clean air, the equitable distribution of wealth, or social justice. Effective art criticism, and the essential art that is or should be its purview can do its part to help heal the moral and/or intellectual void often found in the wake of a highly materialist social order and corporate culture. The demand for such art and criticism is perhaps greater than ever, not from the majority of those institutional players tied to the interests of the art market, but from intelligent, perceptive followers of the arts, those yearning for art that ignites a sense of wonder and the accompanying critical understanding of the art that lends weight or substance to that wonder. A growing number of people following the arts today are either skeptical or tired of much of the vacuous art and the essentially promotional writing that masquerades as “criticism” and, of course, lends credence to the notion that effective art criticism is dead, a situation that is related to much of the art that is written about in the first place. The focus of much contemporary writing on art that Kant would have called “original nonsense,” or what Alexander Nemerov in The Price of Everything labeled “a glittering compromise with commerce” 3 is taking its toll. This compromise with commerce has long been the case, although it now seems that any concern with the aesthetic (as opposed to the artistic) value of contemporary art has largely fallen away, a situation anticipated by philosopher Carl Hausman:
A thing called a work of art can be other than aesthetic. It can function for other ends; for instance, it may be an economic object if it is marketable. Of course, if it is also aesthetic, its value on the market ideally will be determined by its aesthetic function or aesthetic value, although I suspect that most works of art are valued economically (as investments) only indirectly and remotely on the basis of aesthetic considerations. If they were aesthetically valued initially, they would soon lose this value, which would be replaced by considerations of rarity, demand, and psychological motives such as competitiveness and pride.3
This is truly a cultural crisis, the denial of which is parroted by almost every collector, art dealer, and curator fully engaged in art as an investment; a glamorous commodity that now ranks with the trading of gold. Art, artists, and audiences are impoverished when the art selected for exhibition and review fails to offer a sustained sense of wonder as well as a critical edge. The criticism of such art, when or if it makes an appearance calls for a new kind of art critic, or at least the renewal of an older version of criticism: A critic who actually understands how artists think and work as opposed to how collectors, dealers, and the art market thinks and works. However, bringing back Greenbergian formalism or some variation of it, will not do. Writing about the crisis of art criticism almost two decades ago, professor of art history Damon Willick cautioned that a return to a “Greenbergian approach,” will not solve the problem:
Even in times of crisis, a return to an antiquated model is not the answer, especially if that model is idealized and simplified. To ignore the legacies (and lessons) of post-modernism, poststructuralism, feminism, multiculturalism, globalism, etc., and go back to a Greenbergian model of criticism when writing about contemporary art that accounts for these social, political, and theoretical movements of our day, will not resolve the ‘crisis’ of art writing today.” 4
The irony here is that a Greenbergian approach to art criticism never really left the scene and that it often underlies the reviews of art considered “socially relevant” along the lines Willick mentions. When Willick penned these words in 2008 the state of art writing was not yet entirely coopted by the forces disclosed in Kahn’s documentary, although much of the art making a splash then was losing critical steam. Thus, Willick concludes his essay by writing:
If there is a crisis of criticism, then there is a crisis of art. I am of the opinion that there is a crisis of neither, and that we will all be okay.5
As it turns out, we are not all okay. Effective art criticism is still written behind the scenes, but its long-term survival requires attention to the sort of art that is also dismissed or ignored by the power players of the art world. Again, the dismissal or censure of effective art criticism is related to the dismissal or ignorance of art that fails to meet the interests of the status quo. There certainly seems to be a crisis of both today in 2025.
I would argue that some of the most interesting if not important art criticism written today is by practicing artists with analytical skills and the commensurate verbal abilities, “artist/critics” in every sense of this term who often, not surprisingly, are also making critical art or art with an edge. This is not unprecedented, artist/critic Donald Judd, and many others over the years wrote critical reviews of other artists as well as theoretical tracts. What is unprecedented is the extent to which the artist writing critically about his or her own work or anyone else’s is dismissed - if they are even noticed at all - by the art commodity industry as irrelevant. Art, as I have written elsewhere, is nothing without the real freedom that it promises, including the freedom that an artist/critic might proffer. When artists and critics become essentially hand maidens of commerce, art’s immanence is in danger of being overwhelmed or even lost in the “art of the deal.” And the immanence of art is exactly what exceptional artists and critics have dedicated their lives to. I maintain that the realization and articulation of this immanence is now in the hands of artist/critics. There is, of course, a political dimension that partly defines the oppositional mayhem and the clash of values noted earlier, but what is really important here is where art and art criticism take us in the future. While the future is unseeable, what artists and critics do today might have an impact. One thing seems certain: If the corporate domination of the art world continues, and sadly, there seems to be no end in sight here, we will have no substantive culture, but will be saddled with the whims of those running the show for the sake of profit and/or political influence.
There are those who might object to the efficacy or even possibility of artist/critics, that one cannot really be both. The historical record tells us otherwise. At the very least, the artist/critic has an advantage over those who cannot successfully wear two hats, and it is not just a matter of having first-hand experience of the art making process and an ability to articulate that experience. Rather, it is the self-confidence that is gained as both artist and critic. Wearing two hats is difficult but empowering. But to have any vitality or endurance that self-confidence must have a solid foundation.
Setting aside the issue of artists writing critically about other artists, it is first necessary to look at the vexing problem of an artist’s self-criticism. One might say that critical ability begins at home. What many of the critics of artist/critics often overlook is the ability, however arduous it may be, for the artist/critic to effectively wear two hats. Although I hasten to add, if artist/critics are to be effective in either case, one cannot act in the capacity of an artist and a critic at the same time. While thinking critically and creatively might overlap in both cases, when it comes to the actual processes of making art and writing criticism a fundamental disjunction seems necessary. To simplify: Criticism requires focused reasoning and art making requires free-ranging imagination, although again, there is, at least in the most engaging art and art criticism always some overlap. A caveat: Allowing self-criticism in terms of the artist’s purpose or intention to get the upper hand while making the art defeats the art making process. On the other hand, it is a mistake to assume that the artist can be an effective critic of his or her own work or anyone else’s by simply shifting perspective from creative to critical; one must somehow maintain a creative outlook when engaging in criticism, of either one’s own art or the art of others. This requires balancing insight into the art of one’s peers in relation to one’s own work with fresh interpretations that might find common ground and thus lead to new understanding of both. An effective artist is critical and creative in the deepest sense; open to the vagaries of thought prompted by the art making process and able to recognize the critical significance of those departures from the norm. An effective art critic is creative and critical in the deepest sense; able to elucidate insights about current art in other than accepted ways that are also in keeping with the spirit of past art.
Based largely on personal experience, I believe that there is also a demand, again, primarily from serious followers of the arts, for the work of artists making thoughtful and engaging art that not only touches people but might even change them, certainly with regard to how they see art and the world. In my view, this is art that has, much like effective criticism, a certain clarity of intention or purpose, in social, political, philosophical or aesthetic terms, or combinations thereof. In fact, the two, effective art and art criticism, must go hand-in-hand, in so far as the clarity of good criticism seems dependent upon the social, political, philosophical and/or aesthetic focus of the art it addresses. This would explain why artists with a critical attitude and the requisite openness are often the most effective in discussing not only of their own artwork, but the work of others as well. The problem here should be obvious: That artists beyond the pale, even those able to write in clear and concise terms about their art, have little credence even when their art and critical views about it become known to institutional insiders. If the artist fails to make “market friendly” art, preferably with a “signature style,” or is not part of the right demographic, or for any number of factors extraneous to the art, for these reasons and others, the relationship between established art critics, sidelined or otherwise, and noteworthy yet overlooked mid to late career artists is itself critical at a time when promotional and investment strategies have taken center stage. The extravaganzas of mediocrity meant to entertain or amuse the art viewing public in many commercial galleries, art fairs, and online, have failed to respond to art that engages people more deeply. The question is: Is art to be simply a reflection of life’s illusions or foibles? Or is art meant to serve some deeper purpose, for example, as a reminder of our mortality, or our existential predicament? In this regard today’s art world seems to be dancing on its own grave.
The power of the status quo has grown immeasurably since 2018, when Morgan wrote his review of The Price of Everything. The art touted by the mainstream has become ever more facile; aimed it seems primarily at the tastes of a monied class brought up on the excesses of a so-called “popular culture;” a culture apparently devoted to the intellectual interests of twelve-year old’s. All this has, in turn, created a cultural backlash, something that gained momentum during the first Trump Administration. Many artists and others, inside and outside the art world, are tired of all this juvenile work masquerading as timely art. Oddly enough, much of this stuff seems designed to placate some of the well-healed, offering them the supposed irony of kitsch elevated to the status of serious or “high art,” or at least, those newly wealthy who seem to regard Mickey Mouse as the very essence of America (as a commercial icon “Mickey” might very well be). I cannot speak for Robert Morgan, but I suspect that he shares this view. That and a belief that there are still a lot of grown-ups who follow art and believe that contemporary art should be more than simply a diversion from the realities of life; that it must speak to us soberly and with conviction and wonder.
1. Robert C. Morgan, “What ‘The Price of everything’ Says About The Value of Art," Artcritical, the online magazine of art and ideas, November 29, 2018.
2. Robert C. Morgan, Ibid., 1
3. Carl R. Hausman, Metaphor & Art, Interactionism and Reference in the verbal and Nonverbal Arts, Cambridge University Press, 1989, 25.
4. Damon Willick, Criticism After Art: Comments on the ‘Crisis’ of Art Criticism (or, How Writing About Art Writing Earns Its Bad Name Again and Again), Journal, Spring 2008, Volume 10 Number 3, 4.
5. Damon Willick, Ibid, 5.