Recently, while perusing the pages of the current issue of
Border Crossings--an edition I also recently gave
a shout-out to on Twitter for its Lawrence-Weiner-penned tribute to the late
Gerald Ferguson--I saw something a bit strange that I thought might be worth noting here, however self-reflexively.
The troubling points in question are
written by Robert Enright in his review of the documentary
For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism.
Writes Enright,
What the documentary also shows is that in place of serious film critics, the Internet has facilitated (and I’ll have no trouble with the collective noun for this group) a plague of bloggers.He goes on to state,
There are those in the film generous enough to view this development as a healthy democratization, a state where everyone is a film critic. They’re welcome to that opinion. What the film makes clear is that one Stanley Kauffmann is worth a hundred Harry Knowles. “What I see of Internet reviewing,” says Richard Schickel, “is people of surpassing ignorance about the medium expressing themselves in the medium.”I guess what concerned me, mostly, is that any argument that posits "bloggers" vs "critics" seems kind of old and tired, and frankly I'm surprised to see it even being tossed out as a helpful dividing line in 2010.
The fact is--at least in my experience--that both print and online mediums provide forums to good writers and bad writers, thoughtful reviewers and unthoughtful ones.
Granted, I'll admit that the process of getting into print can, in theory, provide some measure of separating the wheat from the chaff. But this is less so in the art media, where jargon and poor writing tends to reign.
Also, there's a number of blogs (and let me be clear, I
ain't talking about mine) that provide vital, engaging approaches to criticism. I'm talking about, to name just a few examples,
Art Fag City,
Hrag Vartanian/
Hyperallergic,
Two Coats of Paint,
Another Bouncing Ball,
Modern Art Notes and
C Monster. What's more, to be academic about it, there are newspaper critics who have their own informative blogs, like
Roger Ebert and
Jonathan Jones. Finally, whether some folks like it or not, blogs provide an often entertaining forum for discussion, perspective and information, a reason I regularly visit outlets ranging from
Sally & Lorna Mills' blog to
Simpleposie to
View on Canadian Art.
Another concerning point of argument comes up when Enright writes,
The heavyweights are included [in the film]—Roger Ebert (The Chicago Sun-Times), A O Scott (The New York Times), J Hoberman (The Village Voice), Richard Schickel (Time) and Lisa Schwarzbaum (Entertainment Weekly)—as are the featherweights—Harry Knowles (aintitcool.com), Mike Szymanski (zap2it.com) and Scott Weinberg (cinematical.com). For the most part, this latter group has little to say about the history of film criticism, since they are its irredeemable present. They measure their success in website hits and the number of times they have been quoted. When Jonathan Rosenbaum from the Chicago Reader says that, “the best thing that can be said of a critic is that what he writes is so singular and interesting that you can’t turn it into advertising,” you are aware he has drawn a line in the sand and the boy from zap2it.com is decidedly on the other side.
The main criticism of bloggers that caught my eye here was "They measure their success in website hits and the number of times they have been quoted"--
as if print magazines don't measure
their own success in audited circulation numbers or in the number of instances their title was referred to in other media. (Magazine grant applications and advertising/media kits are, as I think all of us know at this point, replete with the results of this kind of intensively tracked data.)
The sub-criticism that's also worth noting is the implication that bloggers are more susceptible than print critics to becoming mere glowing-review/advertising-quote generators. The thing is, at least in the Canadian art world, print critics (myself admittedly included) write a whole hella lot more positive reviews than negative ones. And the more negative critiques in our realm tend to turn up on blogs (hello,
Artfag!). But that's another post...
Overall, I respect Border Crossings, and I respect Robert Enright--as a result I find the logical leaps and judgment calls in this review quite strange indeed. Now it's duly noted. Thanks Internet!
Image from Pop and Politics
