Write Makes Right
#VisArts
Writing IRL RN in Ireland
A conversation between Darren Caffrey
and Jim Ricks
Autumn
– Winter 2012
DC:
So
how do you want to start?
JR:
The point
is just to write truthfully in correspondence about what we see as
the shortcomings, pitfalls, success stories, etc. taking place in
Irish arts writing.
I
think the attached graph that James Merrigan of Billion Art Journal
and Fugitive Papers produced a little over a year ago is an
interesting starting point. I immediately countered his graph with
another and then, upon request, modified it. Please note that it was
never clear to me if his use of the word ‘Criticality’ was
intentional or not. Criticality meaning: The quality, state, or
degree of to be considered as of the highest importance. I replaced
the word with ‘Criticalness’, or, the degree to which one is
critical. I reframed ‘Irish Public Readership’ with
‘Contemporary Visual Arts Readership’. I have no idea whatsoever
as to how the readership was determined, I simply re-guestimated. It
would be interesting to ask around perhaps about site hits and number
of copies distributed.
You
wrote earlier:
“Billion
Art Journal, being a product which is almost exclusively the compiled
word of one man, potentially sits into the landscape of echo and
commentary as a tool for self-promotion. It is not for this reason a
failed enterprise; indeed the fact that it achieves the required tone
(as might be necessary to just about overcome this danger) and the
fact that some of Billion’s output, accessories included, serve to
conjure anonymity, no less it remains true that all of this
undressing reveals but a pared down version of the human. And yet,
it is precisely this which sees the voice of the writer become
swallowed up by the mechanisms of total control. In this respect,
insight lacks honesty and even with affectations of
common-language-vernacular, the editor-come-author circles outside of
himself, to such a degree that the product is without true bearing or
emotional hold. It is automatic; it is masculine; it is dominant and
it is regular. It is the father of the future of art criticism in
Ireland.”
I
agree in the sense that James's art and critical practices are
overlapping. After seeing a recent show I began to think of him more
as a successful web artist than anything else. That is, his best
work is coming out of Billion and it is the weirdest and most
unconventional criticism around. Although that could be explored as
well with Paper Visual Art's Ticket Reviews and Shower of Kunst's
Haiku Reviews. But for instance with Billion, I quite liked his
video Shit
List, an
overview of degree shows from the past year. Technically, it is a bit
distracting, but it’s quite a good idea, very practical.
I'm
also curious as to why you say he is the “father of the future of
art criticism in Ireland”?
DC:
The making
of a graph, the original, not the response, is surely little more
than ambitious. While this ambition is perhaps even slightly tongue
in cheek, it is merely a distraction from what else might be
possible. Whatever of the potential of Fugitive or any publisher of
criticism, it seems like space has been left on the graph into which
it is perceived that growth will extend.
I
laughed when I read your question about James being ‘the father’
of this, it seems though that your own feelings, i.e. how you wish to
kick off the discussion reflects something of my slightly sardonic,
slightly sarcastic, and slightly ticklish way of understanding what
is the value of engaging in something as cosseted as art criticism at
all. Don't get me wrong, I feel that there is and needs to be real
contribution from a philosophic, poetic and pragmatic point of
reference, so that an artist might be better enabled to develop a
practice which feels itself part of a vibrant and relevant dialogue.
I say these three 'p' words as I feel that each of them gives clear
indication of the value of human involvement in the common thread
that is, or, in the eyes of the future, will be read as the making of
something of worth to an age.
That
is high minded, probably modernist and yet it is cleanly cut as being
reflective of the ambition of all who care so much as to make a graph
or frame a picture or post on a blog or indeed however it is that an
individual wishes to contribute to the overall picture of their home
or habitat.
What
are your thoughts regarding the qualities that criticism need provide
if art is to be fed sufficiently that it might learn all which
individual artists can?
JR:
I
reject the marginalising efforts and triumph of subjectivism of Post
Modernity, so see no need to discuss whether it is a 'Modernist'
approach or not.
In
no way do I think the original graph was tongue in cheek. My
response was an effort to highlight all of the above and my response
to the response perhaps reveals the need for individual projects to
place themselves on the chart.
In
terms of Fugitive Papers, I think it is of value to get into it as
some important strides have been made here. But I do have my
criticisms. In #2 I felt that it was a refreshingly opinionated
analysis of the deeper currents of Eva's theme. Quite critical of
works structurally, both in regards to their respective functioning,
aims and within the context of a biennale. Beautiful meanderings of
Katherine Waugh, and yet the design negatively affects her
synchronistic approach to exploring a vast range of ideas and artists
in an equally vast range of mediums. To be honest, I’m not
entirely sure if I remember what she was talking about! The essay
strays from art writing to conceptions of the future to Kafka’s
handwriting. I did feel that there was a slightly neurotic self
analysis – even a hypochondria of arts writing – evident in the
James Merrigan piece. He makes daring statements but doesn’t
support them and I feel it is encumbered by a sort of presumptuous
shunting. Alan Phelan’s artworks are apt and funny, although
should have been given a respectful distance from each other if
included together at all. Because of the form of print on paper, the
meaning is the message and the meaning here suffers.
I
do wonder with Fugitive Papers if there is an inclination toward
elitism? A retreat to the safe circles of art writers and artists-cum-writers writing, discussing art writing? Perhaps easier to
write about art-writing than about art? This is not a paper for the
general art public, despite being available at libraries and some
selected galleries. Quizzically, from my own experience, it is not
available to some events to distribute, perhaps due to an unseen
process of weeding out affiliations.
In
response to your question... I think you have already answered it.
However, in a nutshell, I believe that art criticism should not
foreground the writer over the exhibition, that it should describe
(re-view) the exhibition, that it should be candid yet historically
grounded (not necessarily in art) and should take the approach of an
art school critique or in some more urgent cases, that of the
polemic. I think there should also be opportunities for artists or
individuals to respond and counter the review. That should be
encouraged. Further, I choose to include political, philosophical,
aesthetic, and historical concerns. And I mean in the original
nature of the word political, i.e. the polis, the city or community.
DC:
Certainly!
My real feeling is that artists need be able to critique themselves,
but surely the work of others is a good testing ground for such an
approach, providing there is retained the humanity which permits
humility. Otherwise it’s all just show and its nothing but a waste
of time.
That
said, I rarely find myself reading contemporary art criticism! So in
some ways it’s like poetry, where there are many more who write
than there are who purchase the works of others. Some see this as a
problem, not least of all the struggling publishers. I personally
feel that it’s not a problem, it’s part of the solution; the
product as it is, simply becoming an evolution according to what is
desired of its tone, poetic or whatever. You mentioned the
subjective supposition and how it’s not a trend or a matter of
form, definitely I would agree that it is part of it, the whole
picture. So you have people who will write and nurture a voice
as it is called and these same people might find it difficult to
follow the trends of the commercial or in some sense culturally
relevant topics of the field, even if that subsequently delivers with
it a restriction and impediment regards participating in the cultural
currency of that particular field and ultimately ever becoming more
widely read. The subject I guess, in the guise that it takes for the
individual, is always going to be independent. That is the most
obvious point of having such utility as the option and real fact of
the subjective take on the whole picture, even in its most seemingly
inconsequential detail.
When
I was young I had a friend who loved football, you know 10 hours a
day ball at his feet. But he was not one to watch it, even
cup-finals. His passion was felt by him according to his own
perceived involvement in the game. I reckon if it can be cultivated
that through natural development artists would define clearly for
themselves their own contribution, then the product that is art would
acquire an enhanced dimension by way of being regarded as a part of
the their own state.
If
art is our example then the artist is key to making the case for
something of worth which can elaborate upon the human experience in
ways that can be felt as literal as according to the emotional, and
broadly speaking, the fullness of an artistic experience.
Again
to reiterate, there is no question that there ought be better access
to criticism. Equally, there need be better challenge put to those
who criticise, the separation of each and other is basically childish
and stupid if the interest remains for that shared cause.
JR:
There's a
lot of talk about the lack of popular art criticism. For instance
the Irish Times or RTÉ, in that they don't dedicate enough resources
to visual art. There's Aidan Dunne with his biases and old fashioned
approach. And there is Gemma Tipton with her popular narratives. As
well as the generally enthusiastic Cristín Leach in the Sunday
Times. The others don't cover it at all. And what is covered seems
so prescribed and required and not spontaneous. Is there a way
forward in this deadlock? Are they irrelevant? Does it matter?
Should we clamour for change?
DC:
I did
prefer Waldemer Januszak who also presents art themed programmes on
BBC and Channel 4, admittedly not often, but obviously in terms of
public exposure to ideas, it is the TV which serves as a base for
much of the generally held knowledge. I don’t necessarily feel
this to be a bad thing, but it does give cause to doubt the
significance of popular critique in the public sphere; perhaps more
likely the niche is fed in small publications and zines and the like,
so that this niche may grow to become a popular thing. Regarded for
a time as ‘on trend’ but naturally, if it’s not immediate then
often it’s not so clear what the purpose is. Besides
ENTERTAINMENT!
Does
anyone read critique so that they might be entertained? I wonder.
It seems fair to say that entertainment in this form perhaps relies
upon the vanity of the reader, providing references and showing work
which is situated as being relevant to the work discussed. The real
danger is that this large swell of accumulated knowledge bisects the
popular into the niche and into the uninterested. Perhaps there is
also fearfulness of being shown as not knowledgeable on a particular
field or topic.
For
me, the critic hopes to stand between the two camps, the uninterested
and the knowledgeable, and deciphers how best to observe the work
from where it is. Equally the work sits always as part of that
bigger picture of monkeys putting things together to make
entertainment something of a shared experience. Of course ‘making’
is entertaining. It is the response to the subjective call for
action which itself may further shape knowledge and progress
understanding, ultimately lending itself to a wider cause. But it is
an economy of clear difference to, for example, the provision of a
service. Wherein the artist is and can be used by communities,
institutes etc.. but no longer need respond according to their own
subject. This in effect may risk (if risk is the correct word) their
becoming a tool of something which they have little hand in the
making of. When artists become useful are they then better, or is
there a use beyond the tradable kind which the artist need preserve?
Is this a question of purity and if so does the sorts of art reviewed
make a difference? Or is it simply a question of what’s on, and in
a more specifically image based age, what looks good in jpeg?
I
guess clamour for change is a real thing, and always the big
needs to adapt to the small.
Disenfranchisement and dislocation are the obvious results if the
big
commands the adjustment of the small.
In your own home country they say something along the line of “the
customer is always right” and I guess that is the truest sentiment
of the prevailing system. To acknowledge that the vitality and
dynamic which drives all commercial success ultimately arrives from
the individual who demands that very change, be it service or
product.
That’s
not to say that change is ever welcome but.....
JR:
I really
like your two questions:
“Does
anyone read critique so that they might be entertained?”
“Or
is it simply a question of what’s on and in a more specifically
image based age, what looks good in jpeg?”
And
I do think they answer themselves. What were your thoughts on this
Enclave Review? I've never come across it. Have you seen the Paper
Visual Art printed publications? They recently did these Ticket
Reviews.
DC:
OK, so the
questions which you have identified contain ready-made answers, this
in turn leaves me with a question by extension, which is... why not?
How should or could art criticism manage to be of service to a
consumer oriented culture and not be understood in terms of some
entertainment value? This of course is not to say that the
entertainment need be cheap X Factor(y) styled, whereby the system is
the winner every time. Or that it need be based upon nit-picking for
the sake of making comment in an area which may titillate the more
nasty spices of a public opinion, localised as it is.
I
have no interest whatever in outlining caricatures of a field or its
players, unless it be a means to draw attention to the actual
structures that dominate the landscape and its activity. So that
issue aside, my own feeling is that the entertainment value need come
from the art itself. This is why I would employ what may be seen as
a pseudo-philosophic question, as might be asked by anyone of any
world who has ever come into contact with the forces and flows of the
phenomenological and the psychological activities of life. By
alerting to something intrinsically human
of the art-work being discussed, I feel there is more access possible
to the potentials of the work. This in turn gives reason to identify
more clearly the means by which it has or has not succeeded.
By
taking the questions of the work as essentially questions derived
from and encountered by ourselves, the work may only highlight
elements of an overall creative form, and in such case, the narrative
may be drawn as relative to the work and equally, as reflective of
those who go to see it. Or those who wish simply to know of its
existence. In not attempting to frame the work in something which
exists and as such is already known, something close to a result may
be ascertained. This is according to how clearly the connections
have been articulated. But to achieve a result which is somehow
extensive, that being primarily the work and secondarily the world
(which is always going to be bigger and more interesting), requires
ultimately that you know where to look. Naturally communication is
key... it is a word game.
Enclave
Review is I guess, more clinically obsessive in its reference-laden
and pre-structured commentary of the works discussed. In this vein,
much of the writers are what you might term scholarly, art history
lecturers and the like. In this respect the product is well rounded,
it is also well funded, supported by Crawford, The Arts Council and
UCC. There are two editors and an assistant editor, something that
almost any publication these days would be grateful and lucky to
have. For me the routes by which a publication like Enclave takes to
get to the core of a work/exhibit is too narrowly drawn, in
particular the requirement by virtue of being scholarly, that it in
fact need be scholarly. Such is the value of the formality of
provision and the necessary provisos which come attached to the
academic underwriting of knowledge economies.
JR:
There is also then the Visual Artist Newssheet ‘Review Supplement’
and Paper Visual Art. And I will go there,
at the risk of seeming hyper-critical. I've felt that they both in
particular have not
positioned
themselves, since their advent, in contrast or opposition to Circa.
Because, let’s be honest, that is overall what’s going on here
with arts writing. The blogs, the publications in Ireland have all
emerged to fill a vacuum. Indeed, this vacuum has pulled in Irish
Arts Review to fill some of it, as demonstrated in the last year. Or
to speculate as to a more exact analysis, certain powers and/or
funders pulled Irish Arts Review. But I do think it is safe to say
that all the other, initially online now going towards print, Irish
visual arts writing has been a response to or a correction of Circa's
oft noted shortcomings. This has not been entirely successful of
course, as some of the shortcomings come from things we've discussed,
that is, they are the nature of the beast, particularly those on a
shoe-string budget.
However,
to my point... I feel Paper Visual Art hasn't been fully aware of
this or tried to differentiate itself in content from the legacy of
Circa. They do not have a rigour or editorial point of view in other
words. The writing varies widely, in fact they seemingly publish
most things; and in some cases, things with a serious lack of
fact-checking or criticalness. Which leads me to believe they are
‘going through the motions’ in a way. Perhaps they are concerned
primarily with form over content. And one could speculate that the
social dynamics and networks of the sphere of Dublin visual art play
a strong role as well, being in the thick of it and all. ‘The
hierarchy’ on some level as it were. Their latest object oriented
endeavours have included a zine or book and a series of Ticket
Reviews. The latter are printed on tickets, like concert or game
tickets, with small type and short reviews. They were certainly hard
to track down. Which raises another point in regards to the form
over content question. Does it matter what we are saying and to whom
we are disseminating this?
DC:
There
being only a small number of art criticism outlets, before I heard of
Shower of Kunst I tried first the Paper Visual Art. In the end the
reviews which I submitted were met with curiosity and enthusiasm, but
fundamentally this was identified as not in keeping with the given
standards, to which I was referred through an additional link to the
Circa website, wherein guidelines are put forward that may seek to
further cement the seemingly pre-cast conceptions and their trailing
conceits. Thankfully Shower of Kunst gave me an opportunity and took
a real and careful look at what I was saying and what I was not.
Even more happily the result was a reasonably fair and open dialogue,
from which art works may extend. There is for me nothing narrow
about looking at what can be done better and so the exchange which
occurs to create and shape each review or supposedly critical piece
is best served by simply contributing to an echo of the activity
which is ongoing as a series of temporal structures.
This
essentially means that the definable worth of a temporal exhibition
practice is, according to much art critical exponents, characterised
as needing to fit an indiscernible, but nonetheless rigid framework,
built as it is, upon a series of irrational expectations harboured on
all sides of the writer to reader contact.
JR:
Well, I
think a kind of direct engagement is essential, imperative even.
Unfortunately honesty often ruffles feathers and shakes all our
little art hierarchies. Because of the inherent uncertainty in this
sphere, honesty is often swept under the carpet of pleasantries.
Arts writing, and I refer to this in a very non-specific way,
retreats to safer, supportive ground. It becomes a tool or a prop
for both the writer and artist to further their careers. This
impossibility of saying to people “don’t take it personal”
prevents actual discourse outside of academia. And when criticism is
employed it can be used to reinforce individual’s positions in the
hierarchy. What’s professional becomes personal and vice versa.
In
a way I think James Merrigan’s announcement that he is “turning
off” Billion Arts Journal directly relates to this. He has,
intentionally or not, blurred the lines between his practice and arts
writing. He raises some similar points in the statement he issued
about the nature of arts writing, however it is also clearly about
this professional/personal issue.
“My
visible opinion has also caused resentment; resulting in second-hand
gossip that chips away at your resolve. I never thought +BILLION-
would get the attention that it did – good and bad – but now it
is time to rethink what reviewing art means to the individual who
writes it; the artist being reviewed; the institution calling for it;
and the art community at large in Ireland.”
DC:
It seems then that the end of Circa, which you cited to have had such
an overall impact in this notably small world, did in fact spawn
various projects and tools by which to reapply critique, a form that
had been arguably blunted by its ties to past traditions and order.
It would no doubt be the wish of those at Circa, as much so as any
who have followed in their footsteps, that whatever comes next be
best for the subject. In this realm, artists and art are the fruit
and the flower, and means require only new applications to reignite
the hopeful and the willing.
--
A response from James Merrigan
13 January 2013
This is great Darren and Jim! A
patient, reflective, honest, and thorough analysis of your opinions
of art writing 'efforts' in Ireland today. I am emphasising 'efforts'
intentionally, and will explain in due course.
With regard to +BILLION- Journal:
I never knew what I was getting into 2 years ago. The blog was
developed through impulse. What that impulse was I cannot honestly
say. It was a compulsion: I set up the website in one night and
started reviewing immediately. It was perhaps a selfish endeavor, but
aren't we all? I was following the examples of Shower of
Kunst and Dear Nadia, but I wanted the journal to be more
consistent, and the only way I thought consistency of attitude and
reflection could be achieved was through one voice. I never took into
account the evolution of an idea however, and how that would manifest
in the future. The negative aspect of this approach, which I have
learnt through experience, is everything is read explicitly as
self-promotion. Although self-promotion is part and parcel of the
upward trajectory of any artist's career, this is usually done implicitly. At first I saw the reviews as disposable, were one
review would lead to another without any reflective gap. It was
relentless. But I spent an inordinate amount of time on each artist's
work that I reviewed, mainly figuring out their intention and fusing
some sort of dialogue with their ideas, and of course mine. I never
thought of it as a blog. It was serious. I took the artist's work
that I reviewed seriously. But I also benefited greatly from
involving myself with the artists' interests, which gave me an even
greater appreciation and insight into what artists do to make their
work. What I did know from the start was +BILLION- would
corrupt the way I was seen as an artist, and in time would corrupt my
art practice, which it finally did at The Lab, which you refer to
above. All in all, it was an experiment.
I emphasise 'effort' because +BILLION-
was not pre-packaged. I had no experience as an editor. I was only
finding my feet as a writer. I didn't discuss the idea with anyone
else. In essence, it was a private diary, made public, and in some
ways a creative playground where I could test out different ways of
writing and judge the tone of its reception. In this regard it is my
view that all online and printed publications that have been
developed, and are 'developing' post-Circa Magazine, have been
'efforts' to test the waters as to what an art publication could be
online and in-print in Ireland today.
I can't discuss Fugitive Papers in
detail here as I am one of two editors involved in its development
(Michaele Cutaya), but what I will say is, that it is funded through
the Irish Arts Council Project Award, and has been developed through
public and private discussions, which influence the content and
design of the finished printed publication. At this point in time I
think it is premature – in a constructive way – to critique a
printed publication that is only 3 issues old, especially if you
consider the contexts in which it is being developed. The issue of
the so-called crisis of art-writing and criticism that takes central
stage in the first two issues of Fugitive Papers was brought to the
table at the initial public and private discussions, which is not
surprising in this era of 'testing the waters' and finding our
critical feet after Circa.
The fact is, the end of Circa left
a giant gapping crater, not just a vacuum. There would have been
something to work with if we had a razed landscape to start with,
where pop-up online and printed publications could start afresh. As
young artists, writers, curators, we literally had to start again
from a position of ignorance and financial compromise when it came to
the development of art criticism and writing outlets. There was a
sense that everything had been lost through 30 odd years of Circa;
or that knowledge and experience was ignored, or not shared. However
the attitude toward Circa's demise says a lot, from the
collective "good-riddance" to "We don't want another
Circa," which I think is wholly unfair.
The influx of often temporary, and it
would seem a segregated and competitive population of various online
and in-print art writing outlets, is exciting and disheartening all
at once. What we would all benefit from is the sharing of resources,
whether that is simple dos and don'ts, or just an honest appraisal
from all interested parties of what is being developed currently. Jim
and Darren's analysis is fine here as a starting point but it's quite
a reductive sample.
I think it is good that there are
different voices out there and I welcome critical voices that are
individual and who set a tone or contrast to their peers. My
experience has been an extreme case of artist/writer corruption. But
personally, I wouldn't change anything that I have tested over the
last 2 years. I think we all have to test the waters now and again,
how boring a world would it be without contradiction and
experimentation, and nothing to complain about from the biased and
subjective opinion of the art public.
It would be great to hear from the rest
of the publications who are referred to it this dialogue???
--
Editor's note (21/2/13): Please see Adrian Duncan's recently published essay
Compassion in Art Criticism in Paper Visual Art Journal
here.
