Paisanos,
I've put in my notice about not renewing my contract when it expires on 11/25. I'll continue posting reviews here until then, but wanted to say my goodbyes now, as I don't know what will happen on Thanksgiving (I don't want to give a big goodbye speech and have the site go dark the next day).
Just this morning I talked to Stephanie Burke, my friend and Managing Editor of our other sister site, ChicagoArtMap, and talked about her taking over and keeping the "art of the apocalypse" logo burning brightly. (Because of the alphabetization of the ChicagoNow blogs, it's extremely beneficial to have a blog that begins with "A"). So that's a possibility, but as of now, nothing has been decided.
Alicia (Eler) also mentioned that two more visual arts bloggers are coming on ChicagoNow.com, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing those sites. As soon as we get names and links, we'll post about it.
ChicagoNow.com has been an outstanding experience. I would have to say that so far it's been the best thing to happen to me in my cultural career. I'm simply too swamped with Chicago Art Map, and the launching of three more arts and culture sites in the next few months (as we attempt to create a fiscally solvent model for a network of cultural websites with paid writers and staff). These independent sites have led me to start working with advertisers, and that's added a level of conflict and complexity. The lynchpin being when we planning on covering SOFA Chicago, and then they became an advertiser, yet we still did a review here. For me that was too close to a conflict-of-interest "no no" and I knew then that I had to let this blog go.
But I'm not going to leave without one more editorial!
Here goes, my parting words to sum up my sentiments over the last six months:
Criticism is a two-edged sword, as judgment about artwork can be positive or negative. What's important is to recognize that no matter who we are, or how long we've been making art, a negative response to our work still stings. Whether the criticism is done nicely, and backed up with facts and intellectual arguments, or consists of a flip comment saying is was lousy -- regardless of the argument or tone, it all hurts and none of us are immune to those feelings.
Conversely, I believe, in reality, that there is no such thing as a bad review. Nothing, nothing, nothing, brings more attention or curiosity about the work than a bad review. People inherently have a desire to see the work for themselves and come to their own conclusion. The worst thing isn't being panned, it's being ignored.
Another issue I'll address is that I know there is a fear, with citizen journalism and Everyman art criticism on the rise, that every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to be allowed to have an opinion and it's going to hurl any kind of professional art evaluation standards out the window. For me personally, I say let's try it and see how things shake out. But even for those who disagree, and make the argument that there should be critical gatekeepers, then I beseech that the gate not be the gate of academia. Intellectualism of art is one point of view, but it's not the only point of view, and it's not the only way to see art. My core belief is that art should be a visceral, powerful experience on the viewer, and that "mind-blowing" quality shouldn't just stem from what comes out of an analysis, but should be contained within the work. I think factors like common sense and a gut aesthetic should always be criteria that are invited to the critical table.
The problem with allowing only an intellectual evaluation of art is that it extends to the realm of appreciation - the belief that the same degree of training is needed to see and "understand" art, and that in turn, translates to an idea that people can't make good decisions about art collecting without similar training. The result is potential art-buyers being scared to death, and a weak local art market
Here's a second thought (that actually connects to the first thought, eventually):
One issue I find worrisome in art schools is that the students become proficient at defending their art at a time when they should be only be exploring their joys and fears as it relates to art making. Finding your way in the vulnerability of the art making process, with all its madness, should come first - and only much later should artists be defending their work.
This goes back to my first point, that maybe some of the people who've been unhinged over criticism stems from them not coming to peace with their own inner self-doubt that every artist must learn to live with. When I write fiction, I generally like it when I read it over the first time, then as I re-work the piece, there is always, always, a phase where I think the work is a pile of crap and feel like the piece is a failure, and subsequently, I am a failure. After writing for over 20 years, I know what that it's just a phase, and I can power through it - but that took a long time. As I started to develop a craft, I didn't defend my work; I worked in isolation until I was strong enough to present it to the public. To this day, no one can say anything to me that I haven't already said to myself.
So that's my final editorial, and we'll go back to reviews by the delightful Friday Night Army and we'll see what happens then.
It's been quite a ride here at Art Talk Chicago, and like Dorothy said about the land of Oz, "Some of it wasn't very nice... but most of it was beautiful."
My final wish on this blog is this: may we never forget that art is a visual symbol of great creative talent, in its most untamed, insane, enlightened, primal, flawed and radical forms. May the writing that surrounds art NOT flatten and suck the life from the work, but rather celebrate that wild and uninhibited sprit, and share those core characteristics.
See you on the other side.
Always,
Kathryn
Filed under: Uncategorized
Kathryn, it's been so great having you on ChicagoNow. We're all very, very impressed by the community you've built on the site in just a few months and we're excited for your next ventures.