@cinque I guess I do see the ATL art blogs as authoritative voices, just a new kind of voice, the Web 2.0 voice. Maybe the editors of the site are the real voices, maybe not; it's the name ArtCriticAtl.com, ArtRelish.com or Burnaway.com that gives whatever is published under that banner credibility. So even though it's not one singular person writing, it comes under a singular name. I guess in that way I see those places as the new style authoritative voice. And yes, we need more of that and I definitely agree that's the way art criticism is heading, but I guess what I yearn for more is what Rocio Rodriguez wants, a more vocal and critical slant from writers. A critic that draws in criticism (kind of like this) and dialogue, but about the work on the walls. Opinionated and maybe ornery would be fun.
Looks like a busy next two weekends for openings, maybe some good articles to come?
I flat out disagree.
I keep trying to find an eloquent way to put that, but after much thought, that's all I got.
1) We do need an authoritative voice in arts, to help shape or at least understand certain trends in art. When left to the web or open forum discussion you end up getting drivel like youtube comments. And you are right that comments are the bronze age of interactivity with articles or writers, but that's where places like ArtRelish.com and Burnaway.org step in. Both of these art blogs offer ways to interact with not only the writers of the blog, but to participate in criticism by submitting articles. I believe both sites take articles regardless of the writer and leave it to the editorial staff to decide. So what matters there is the quality or writing not necessarily who wrote it. Those sites function as a one stop shop for all things Arty in ATL. And why they go unmentioned in this article baffles me.
2) Web 2.0 is upon us. ArtsCriticATL.com, ArtRelish.com, and Burnaway.org all offer highly interactive content from user generated articles (see above) to live streaming video of events. Recently, Artrelish has featured live streaming video from lectures and other art-centered events around ATL, such as Dali till Dawn music exhibition. Burnaway has audio interviews, ArtRelish has on-site video exhibitions from galleries or other spaces. ArtsCriticAtl and Burnaway just received a grant from Possible Futures to continue their operations. These new hybrids exist and are functioning and Atlanta has become one of the places that have pioneered Web 2.0 (think Scoutmob).
3) Criticism is failing because it has no voice. Critics are only relevant when they are clamoring for their point of view and seeking justification in the galleries, uncovering work that speaks to them, and then spreading the word. Atlanta needs stronger voiced-critics, because they are the only barometer of how the art world is doing in an area. If the art world is floundering (galleries, museums) then critics will have nothing to discuss. If galleries and museums revert into a safe-mode of operation, only showing things that sell, then we must know. I think the article on the High a while ago, was poignant but didn't quite go far enough. The ATL art-world can't be limited to just the High, but must be seen as a multi-faceted juggernaut capable of being just as relevant as New York, Miami, or L.A. But the art-world needs the critics just as much as the critics need relevant art.
Just a few thoughts, that (you are right) in comment form probably are more disjointed than I would like. Oh well.
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation