artthrob picks
On The Concept of Criticism at Breaking Dawn
By Chad Rossouw on 25 July
I’m writing this article in response to a piece by Gerhard Schoeman in Art South Africa Volume 11 Number 4 entitled On the Concept of Criticism at Twilight. Divided into 23 numbered paragraphs, Schoeman’s article gathers a series of quotes, anecdotes and observations on the nature of criticism with flavours of Nietszche, Benjamin and Kristeva. Its point, as far as I could gather, is that something is wrong in South African art criticism, it is stale, reactive, prattling, advertising and, of course, unengaged with any true notion of criticality. While I am by no means an optimist, and could probably point out a dozen articles that fit all those criteria, I’d like to put forward two points in opposition to Schoeman’s article.
art events calendar
VIEW FULL CALENDARbuy art prints
edition of 10: R49,000.00
About Editions for ArtThrob
Outstanding prints by top South African artists. Your chance to purchase SA art at affordable prices.
FIND OUT MORE Editions for artthrobFirstly, as far as I understand, criticism has always occupied the position of never being enough. In almost every epoch critics have been seen as conservative, pompous or lofty, inaccessible or unappreciated and unnourished, with each hack yearning for that mythical golden age when criticism meant something. I would go so far as to suggest that art criticism could be defined by this lack, and this is the driving force that motivates critical writing. It’s an Electra complex, where art criticism yearns for the heavy, swinging, visual dick of art-making, which is only partially resolved by the critical article (I am being a little silly here, but this particular issue is expressed in Schoeman’s article. More on that in a minute.) What I am getting at is that the feeling that there is something lacking in the art world, in criticism, is not negative, but definitive.
My second point of opposition is a little more difficult to articulate, in part because I feel unequipped and in part because, ironically, I feel Schoeman’s concept of criticism is lacking.
(‘You fucker,’ he snarled, suddenly furious. ‘One thing I hate in this world and you are fucking it. You are an ironist […] You can’t take the direct route. You exist in a haze of possible paths through life. That’s not the way!’ From Adam Roberts’ Yellow Blue Tibia 2010)
To deal with the first part, Schoeman’s article is rich in critical theory and I am poor. I don’t have beef with critical theory, I’ve indulged in it occasionally, but I’m not particularly passionate about it. I prefer my insights to come from fiction because they are better, more articulate writers. As such, I may well be missing the subtlety in some of Schoeman’s text.1 However, I think that Schoeman has a core argument that I can dig into regardless of my above anxieties (which I am sure you are rapidly losing interest in).
Schoeman’s idea of criticism is nostalgic, a touch reactionary, narrow, elitist and idealistic. In fact, I feel a little uncertain about exactly what art criticism he is talking about, which again makes me paranoid . However, in order to be productive I’d like to recast these problems as a lack rather than a presence by proposing an alternate idea of criticism to bounce off of. I’d like to call my concept realkritik and it has four main premises.
1.Realkritik moves from the concrete to the interpretive or theoretical. When studying under the late Colin Richards, he radically changed my approach and understanding of art writing with a simple tenet: Look first.
(‘It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.’ From Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes story A Scandal in Bohemia 1891)
What this implies is that criticism is born from observation first, interpretation must be based on formal analysis and theory moves from the art to the text. While perhaps a little unfair in that Schoeman is writing art criticism criticism, he nevertheless seems to lack this concreteness - he slips examples into the footnotes and the last few paragraphs.
2. Realkritik deals with the shit of our tiny compromised art world with something resembling dignity. It seldom bitches about provincialism, navel gazing, self-interest and pettiness. We know it’s there. We partake of it. We are integral to it. It’s not much better anywhere else. Which is not to say ignore these problems, but pointing them out tightens the loop. It makes the room smaller and the echoes harsher. Having run the gossipy rag ArtHeat for many years, this is a lesson that I learnt the hard way: Solutions lie in actions, not poking dogs with sticks. Schoeman is quick to point out these issues, slower to suggest solutions and slim on the action. Bitching is criticism born out of disappointment, anger and restlessness. It is easy to cut - less easy to build. Realkritik also accepts that critics are generally disappointed and angry.
3. Realkritik doesn’t assume that the reader is stupid or lazy. Schoeman’s idea of criticism privileges the long form: the carefully argued text. It negates the short forms as well as any other form of information exchange, which he suggests are catering to a reader’s shortened attention span. Here Schoeman evidences a distinct nostalgia for the golden age when criticism arrived whole in nice books, not scratched out of notes and ideas jotted in quick articles for newspapers. Criticism doesn’t have to be expounded, it comes in multiple media, it is insinuated, implied and even sometimes on YouTube. Thinking critically isn’t a role belonging to the critic alone. Realkritik accepts Beyoncé into its life.
4. Realkritik accepts that art is a form of entertainment. A subtle, complex, bitching kind of entertainment. A meaningful, difficult, troubling kind of entertainment. A self-critical, reflective, important kind of entertainment. But, yes, entertainment. Realkritik deals with this, and isn’t angry at art for not being more than entertainment. Realkritik also doesn’t aspire to be an autonomous artwork in itself. Writing is a skill. Thinking about art is a rare blessing. But regarding criticism as an artform, as Schoeman mentions, is nothing more than showing our penis-envy, for the visual swinging dick I mentioned earlier. Criticism should be respectful, joyous, cutting, focused, dismissive, reasonable about art. But it shouldn’t aim to be art, an autonomous art object. This has whispers of the desire for modernist grandeur, rather than accepting knowledge, and criticism, as a web of nodes that build significance over time and only gains value and meaning from being read and understood.
5. Realkritik reserves the right to make dick jokes.
Footnotes:
1As a further disclaimer, an example of text that Schoeman implies is ‘prattle’, was written by my friend and colleague Matthew Blackman. I only noticed this on closer inspection as it was hidden in the footnotes, between references to Barthes and Ronald Suresh Roberts, but I will posit the possibility that I am defensive, and hence further unequipped. Prattle is not a very nice word, even when Roland Barthes says it.