THE STATE OF CRITICISM
183
at this point most art writing takes place. One reason is lack of space,
which precludes an extensive analysis.
To return to the economic factor: with very few exceptions, it is no
longer possible, as it was when I began to write in the early sixties, to
earn a living as an art critic. The art magazines, which were at that time
run in the red as tax write-offs, are now required by mass conglomerate
owners to produce a profit. This profit can only be achieved at the
expense of the critics' surplus value. In the cultural climate of bottom
line economics, criticism functions as printed decor surrounding
reproductions.
At present, a number of the art magazines assure their advertisers
of reviews. Even if editorial space is not literally bought, editorial and
advertising content merge
to
such a degree that the two become
inseparable. To attract a larger audience, more popular subjects are
constantly sought by art editors.
If,
for example, you go to a newsstand
and pick up an issue of
Art News,
it is not the
Art News
Thomas Hess
edited.
It
is a strictly commercial magazine pitched at a mass market;
the writing has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any activity
that could be considered art criticism.
Given this dismal picture,
why
does anyone write art criticism and
for whom?
Printing costs prohibit marginal magazines from publish–
ing opinions counter to those held by the art market. Publishing a
serious analytical article involving a judgment in value is costly to the
critic who must find some means of support in teaching or journalism.
And it is not in the interest of the art magazines which exist today to
support the art market and to entertain the public. The question even
arises whether the art market at this point acts as the absolute censor of
the art press by deciding what will reach print.
Conceptual art, for better or for worse, was a reaction to the
domination of the market. It eliminated the problem by eliminating
the artwork. Now there is a new conceptual criticism, an art writing
not involved in judging art, but in using it as a jumping-off point for
structuralist or semiotic abstractions indifferent to the va lues (moral or
aesthetic or qualitative) of the object under discussion. Now it's very
important that these new methodologies-structuralism, semiotic
analysis and so on-are, unlike Marxist criticism, value free. They
must be neutral and value free for the critic to be superior to the work
being examined. The new sense of self-importance of the art critic is, I
feel, characteristic of the decline of the audience. Today, everyone,
including the art critic, wants to get into the act. Or better still, to
be
the act.
