Lots of arts organizations have blogs on their websites. Most aren’t very good, and they’re difficult to maintain well. There are many out-of-work critics. And less and less arts coverage in local press. So why not critics-in-residence?
Yeah independence. But let’s suspend for a moment the idea that criticism’s highest calling is simply to inform consumer choice. If instead the idea is to promote informed and interesting commentary, then who has more of an interest in this than artists and arts organizations? If readers knew that a critic was in residence rather than being paid by a local news organization, they might read the commentary differently, but so what? Would you rather read PR boilerplate that nobody believes or the observations of someone trying to engage with the art, even if they’re paid to do so by the institution?
Our ability to judge news sources is much more sophisticated now that it used to be. There is value in a Yelp or Amazon review even if it’s not vetted. If the critic in residence was clearly labeled as such, the conflict is transparent and readers could make up their own minds.
There are critics in the traditional press who pander. A critic in residence who pandered wouldn’t have much following. But what kind of statement would it make for an arts organization to invite a critic to be really critical and help spread that criticism? Maybe a festival with a beginning and end would be a good testing ground.
Of course there are big ethical issues. But art critics already write catalog essays for museums. Music critics write program notes. Newspapers take ads from arts organizations. Rules have been developed to define the ethics of each situation. Why couldn’t there be a critic-in-residence protocol that helped promote intelligent discourse and didn’t compromise the reader, the critic or the institution?
I’m not arguing that critics inside arts organizations (hmnnn… embedded critics?) is any kind of substitute for the Times review or NYRB essay. But the definitions, forms and conventions of journalism are being prodded, poked and reconsidered, and the idea maybe deserves some consideration before being dismissed. Currently there’s no ethical standard for artsbloggers, yet some bloggers have big influence. If there were standards, who would set them?
While I’m on the topic of institutions criticizing themselves in public, I’ve always loved The Stranger‘s long-running Public Editor column, which trashes the contents of each week’s issue. Not only is it fun reading, but it declares that The Stranger doesn’t take itself too seriously.
I’m not so sure about the in-house “critic” but I do like the idea of someone who serves as the communications intermediary between the arts organization and the public. Arts organizations have a habit of talking down to their publics, talking at them or boasting about themselves in public in hopes that that potential audiences will find them appealing. The idea of having an audience-oriented staffer whose job it is to translate all the self-congratulatory insider language into understandable vernacular seems like a great idea. Critics probably come closest to the ideal and if they’re paid to interpret and advocate rather than to judge, it might avoid the inherent ethical obstacles.
Now let’s see, a salary of $65k with benefits plus overhead…
Hiring your own critic used to be all the rage in Europe. Sounds like a good idea, Doug!
"Of course there are big ethical issues." what are they and why didnt you include them with this blog?
"But art critics already write catalog essays for museums. Music critics write program notes." programme notes are the furthest we can get from critique.
"Newspapers take ads from arts organizations." we all know this is fantasy exagration paying the usual attention to embellishment for only the p[urposes of blurring.
"Rules have been developed to define the ethics of each situation." what are these rules?
"Why couldn't there be a critic-in-residence protocol that helped promote intelligent discourse and didn't compromise the reader, the critic or the institution?" what do you mean specifically by "intelligent discourse?"
The theatre has had in-house critics for years: we're called dramaturgs. Our function is only secondarily to educate the public; primarily, we serve the institution as an ideal "pre-audience" audience for the artists. We also do research and perform many other functions. Of course issues of independence can arise, but the best dramaturgs have a good deal of (largely unseen) influence on their theatre's programming and other aesthetic choices.
@Davey: Ethical issues? Obvious. The critic would be paid by the arts organization, so why would the reader trust what the critic was writing? You say program notes are "the farthest we can get from critique." Some might be, but not all. Not quite sure what your point is about newspapers and ads. Mine was that the editorial and business sides of most news organizations have a firewall between them. Arts organizations don't buy ads directly from the people writing about them. As for "intelligent discourse", I meant discussion of work and performance that was more in the form of discussion rather than only a pronouncement of value in the thumbs up/down manner.
A potentially better idea, I think, is one I’ve discussed with colleagues before: an independent publication funded by a consortium of arts organizations. Because it would have more than one institutional stakeholder, I think such a publication would have a bit more credibility with readers. Many museums already publish member magazines. What if, instead, all the museums in town published a single magazine together, and all sent it to their members? Or, to slice it a different way, all the contemporary arts museums in the country? It’d create opportunities for cross-marketing (ie. the contemporary art museum members now get info about historic shows at the fine arts museum down the road, too, or the Rothko Chapel member reads about happenings at Mass MoCA and plans a vacation). I think it’d be a more interesting publication for readers, to say nothing of the obvious cost-saving benefits. It means communications people (like me) would have to let go a little, and I can already hear the objections from development (“you’re going to share our donors?!?!”), but the fact is that most arts consumers already frequent more than one organization. We don’t own our members.
Here’s the rub, though: where does the money come from? I see it coming from the marketing line. Are you ready to see everyone reduce their advertising spending with Artforum and Art in America to make this happen? It could be the kiss of death for the existing media outlets that are already suffering from reduced advertising income.
@Charlotte: Great idea. There have been a number of local publications around the country that have tried doing this by selling ads to arts organizations. But it’s tough to get together enough such revenue to make it work. There already exist publications focused on specific areas of the arts (and you mention a couple of them), but arts magazines have always had difficulty making an independent go. One of the reasons the NYT A&L section is so fat with ads (and is, I’ve been told, the most profitable newspaper section in the country) is that not only is it the go-to place to read about the arts but it also brings with it a huge general audience who buys the paper for other reasons. While the standalone arts audience is big, it doesn’t necessarily deliver the general reader.
David Copelin’s point about dramaturgs is spot on, and it could be extended to include the curator in an art museum, the educator in museums and other organizations – anyone charged with interpretation and otherwise “promot[ing] intelligent discourse.”
Not every educator or curator or dramaturg is up to the task, but they should aspire to be great critics, in the sense you are using the word. (And there’s nothing to say that arts organizations that have less-than-great critical minds on staff would do any better hiring competent critics-in-residence.)
Trevor brings it home: $65K with benefits. If newspapers can’t afford these critics, what makes you think that art organizations can — especially in this economic climate?
@cathy: I’m not suggesting a full-time job with benefits. I’m not thinking staff critic. I’m thinking little residencies. The Banff or Aspen festivals, for example, bring a critic in for a week and the critic writes about the festival and leads discussions, say…
Doug, just wanted to clarify, part of the reason I think an arts community-published magazine could succeed where, you rightly point out, commercial niche magazines have a tough time is that it would serve development and marketing needs simultaneously, and the departments would theoretically both contribute to its funding, unlike commercial magazines, which are only funded by marketing dollars via advertising.
Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival in MA has a changing “Scholar-in-Residence” who lectures and writes in-house educational material.
The two I know write or wrote criticism outside of this gig, at other times in their career — Suzanne Carbonneau and Philip Szporer (Montreal-based.)
yeah buddy!
That’s such an excellent and simple concept!
Lenny
I really like the way Artist Organized Art has handled this (http://artistorganizedart.org/commons). It seems they have been making the case by point of practice for a while. Why don’t you interview them here and develop this piece?