The End of One-Way Journalism: Reviewing the Reviewer

Sept 30, 2009

(Note: this is kinda long – feel free to skip down to the “Response to the Review “ section. We also encourage you to leave a comment on your thoughts about this or future posts by clicking on the Comments link at the end of the post, in this case, after the words "stay tuned".)

I INTRODUCTION

Art Reviews of shows and venues are important to the life of artists, museums and galleries. They are frequently the only point of contact between an artist, gallery or museum and the non-artist public, which means most everybody but the small group of active art goers.

At the beginning of this exhibit, prior to any other reviews, we initiated a program to have Independent Reviews of our shows because we perceived an urgent need for more reviews (and hence more reviewers) of the visual arts scene in general and of our shows in particular. We hired Bonnie Rosenberg, a graduate student in the Goldring Arts Journalism Program at SU, to write ongoing independent reviews of our shows. The deal is this: We pay her for her time to view shows and write reviews, which we will then publish on our website and blog regardless of what she writes. We will check the review only for factual matters, not evaluative or interpretative content. We posted her first review of Visions on our website and blog (delavanartgallery.blogspot.com) on Friday, September 11. We, of course, reserve the right to comment on her review, as she has the right to comment on our comments.

Up to now the review situation has been characterized by One-Way Journalism. If an art critic decides to do a review of a venue’s show, he or she comes, writes a review and publishes it on a schedule convenient to them. For all practical purposes there is no possibility of a publicly viewable response – certainly not one which is timely or in the same part of the newspaper in which the review first appeared. At best, any response would appear, unedited, the following week, in the same section as the original piece of writing. But that “at best” doesn’t happen. A Letter to the Editor, if it is published at all, will generally be placed in the op-ed section and will generally be cut in overall length or heavily edited. (In one non-art related case I’ve had a “Letter to the Editor” held up for over a month, then edited with changes in paragraphing, sentence structure and tense to the point that the final result made me look incoherent).

Ideally the resolution to the problem of One-Way Journalism would be to have the review done earlier and then made available to the artists and venue being reviewed so that they could make their comments. Then the whole ensemble, the original review and the comments, would be published at the same time in the same space. The newspapers may not have the time, inclination or space (ink), but this would be a valuable asset to the community.

So, we are forced to do it ourselves. However, with the internet, a whole new dimension of communication has opened up. It is possible not only to post writings and responses to them, but also to make public comments regarding those writings. This opens up the process to interactivity – i.e. posting of an original writing, a response(s), then response(s) to the responses etc. So, who can respond? Anybody: gallery staff, artists who have been reviewed, other artists, the general public—even the art critics being themselves reviewed. The next section of this writing is our response to the Katherine Rushworth’s recent review in the Post-Standard.

II RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW

The review of our show Visions by Katherine Rushworth appeared in this past Sunday’s Stars section of the Post-Standard (Sept 27, 2009). For your convenience we’d like to post the entire review here on this blog, but that would probably violate copyright law. As a second option we’d like to provide a convenient link to the review, but so far have been unable to find it posted on the Post-Standard’s website Syracuse.com.

We’re therefore left with the challenge and necessity of commenting on a piece of writing that we are unable to provide here in its entirety. So here goes.

IN GENERAL

In the second paragraph of the review Rushworth, who will be referred to as the “Art Critic” from here on, said “There’s little unifying the works thematically…but that really doesn’t matter. Each artist demonstrates some degree of vision and all three prove to be at least competent in their respective media”. How can the term Visions not be inclusive in a visual arts show? Does not every artist have a vision? Then, her use of the term “at least competent…” displays, in my opinion, the grudging acknowledgment of the quality work shown here, but put in the least appealing terms. I think it indicates an upfront bias against either the artists in question, or, more probably, against the Delavan Art Gallery. For the record, these four artists are very competent and deserve more than a grudging nod to their abilities.

TANYA KIROUAC

Next, the Art Critic states that Toronto artist, Tanya Kirouac, has a solid command of encaustic painting, but (and now comes the negative) she “limits her subject matter to the point of redundancy.” The Art Critic goes on to say: “This may not be entirely Kirouac’s fault, but the consequences of the specific works show organizers chose. But that’s always the risk an artist faces when the gallery assists in the selection of work”. In both a discussion with the Art Critic at the end of her review time at the gallery, and in an e-mail on the subject when she sought clarification, we made it very clear that we, the gallery staff, pick the artists to be exhibited, the timing of an exhibit and the selection of an artist’s art work*. While we certainly encourage input from artists during the selection process, selection is our responsibility. That said, I am quite proud of our selection of work by the four artists, including Tanya Kirouac’s – as well as the selection of over 165 artists and their artwork over the past six+ years. In this case I have re-examined the five pieces the Art Critic listed and found them to be sufficiently different to be shown together – they provide variation within an internal “unity of theme” that in other contexts the Art Critic seems to like.

BILL STORM

She states: “But in other images, in which he ratchets up the color to high-octane levels, he seems to have lost his aesthetic sense and is playing with color (and digital toys) simply for the sake of playing with color. In Primeval #12 and #8, the color seems manipulated and does not enhance the natural landscape he’s using as subject matter. I’d rather Storm went over the top in to the realm of the impossible, as in Primeval #2, #7 and #1, than not be fully committed.”

Most photography today has moved from film to digital, and therefore goes through a computer. The “digital toys” to which the Art Critic refers, are, when more respectfully considered, the photographer’s tools to be used by the photographic artist as a painter uses paint brushes and paint. The skill and judgment with which the photographic artist uses a computer determines whether the output is good or bad art. It is fair to criticize a photographer’s use of the digital tool box, but the Art Critic has here stipulated an interesting criterion which is that changes in color (which she derogatorily refers to as manipulation) must enhance the natural landscape. Further, she has criticized the artist for manipulating images, but then suggests that he should do more of it.

PHIL PARSONS

The Art Critic made a generally favorable comment of this excellent oil painter’s work, but she felt the placement of one of the buildings interfered with the natural composition. OK, so he has twelve marvelous paintings on display, and she takes her limited space to dis one painting she didn’t like.

BARBARA STOUT

An all too brief description of the watercolors and ink pieces by a fine artist.

OVERALL

More space given to Barbara Stout, and less to uninformed speculation/projection about the selection process would have made a much better review. Also, the pejorative reference to the artists as being “at least competent” was unhelpful to a reader wanting to find out about the exhibit.

I invite the reading public to visit the gallery and see for yourselves the show of the four artists’ work, and the accuracy of the Art Critic’s review. One note: Tanya Kirouac’s work is only up for three more days – Friday, October 2 (noon – 6:00 PM0 and Saturday, October 3 (10:00 AM – 4:00 PM).

-Bill Delavan, Director

* Note: Only in some special circumstances such as elementary school shows, retrospectives and some of the group shows, do we not select the artwork.

Final note: Caroline Szozda McGowan, Gallery Manager, will shortly be posting her comments on Katherine Rushworth’s review on the blog and other reviewed artists may also be posting. Stay tuned.