The artist as critic
by Sue Williamson
Do artists make good art critics? Yes. And also, No. On the positive side, I think artists understand more clearly than anyone else (people who do not actually make stuff) what the processes are in physically making art. So from a technical point of view, I think an artist gives a very informed view on this. Artists who keep up with contemporary theory and writing, can also locate a body of work in its context and frame. A view from within, as it were.
The major drawback is, it is hard to write with total honesty about one's peers, especially if they are in your social circle. One does so as the risk of facing their wrath. "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen," is an expression I have had to use a number of times, sometimes adding, "We've all been burnt on occasion. To be an artist is by its very nature to have to expose yourself to criticism. It's your choice to accept that criticism as having some merit or not."
I remember at the height of the Candice Breitz/Kendell Geers battle of words, Breitz stating her feeling that Geers was wearing too many hats for comfort - he was artist, critic, and also curatorial consultant to the Gencor (as it was then) collection. It is something of a South African phenomenon, but not exclusively. Robert
Motherwell was known for his writing on art. Gabriel Orozco curated a show
on the current Venice Biennale.
Perhaps the most important thing about being a critic is to remember that the artist has, almost always, worked for up to two years on a show. Even if the result is stultifying, it is important to reflect on what the artist was trying to achieve, and to engage with that.
