Considering the AICA awards

Admin: If you're looking for the Lee Siegel post, it's here.

Every year the International Association of Art Critics' US chapter has an annual awards ceremony. It's a pretty simple concept: AICA gives awards to curators and dealers who create the exhibits of the year across a range of geographically-obtuse categories. The nominations for the 2007 awards, given out in February, were announced last week. Awards go to museums, curators, and commercial galleries. (They're not online. Disclosure: I'm an AICA member.)

There are three things that I don't like about the AICA awards: First, involvement in them should be regarded as a major conflict of interest. The AICA awards encourage shared interests between art writers and critics and the dealers, auction houses and museums they're supposed to cover. (As Todd Gibson has noted, AICA loves the incestual broth.) Why? Art critics nominate curators and gallerists who will be recognized and elevated. That's a little more commercial/promotional than I think is appropriate, so I sit out the nominations. (When I see shows that deserve attention, I review them here or elsewhere. That's what critics do. FWIW, the NYT's and LAT's critics sit out nominations and voting too. House rules.)

Next, there are flaws in the process which cause deserving shows to go unrecognized. Case in point: Amy Sillman's recent solo show at NYC's Sikkema Jenkins received rave reviews. Jerry Saltz liked it (his second Sillman write-up -- has Saltz reviewed any other artist twice? This just in: Barney, Gordon, Sze, Goldin, Walker.), I loved it, Ken Johnson liked it, bloggers seemed to particularly love it (Artists Unite, for one), the Brooklyn Rail spotlighted it, and on and on. So even though the Sillman show might have been the most critically praised NYC spring show, it wasn't nominated for an AICA award. That's a problem with the AICA process: It fails to recognize the actual reviews and related good work done by AICA members, instead valuing the rolodex-enabling nominations of the AICA members who aren't working critics or even writers (which is the over-over-overwhelming majority).  

I also sit out the voting, and here's why: There is no rule that a voter has to see an exhibition to vote for it. Think about that for a second. That makes the AICA awards either a popularity contest, or awards for museum catalogs. That's a real blow to the credibility of the whole idea. (Yes, I realize that not everyone can travel to see every show in the United States. But the best -- again: working -- critics in the US manage to get to see most of the shows that would make anyone's top five list.) 

Tomorrow: Some thoughts on what we learn about the current museum climate from the AICA nominations.