Criticism and Curatorial Practice as realms of art discussion.

44° Congreso AICA, Asunción, Paraguay, 19.10.11

The discourse of Art Criticism in the field of visual arts has not stopped transforming itself throughout time. Besides the already established coordination between Criticism, Aesthetics and History of Art, still in a constant process of discussion by art scholars, we now see, as well, the need to think about criticism in connection with another reality – the curatorial practice in its task of organizing art exhibitions. This is, in our opinion, a fundamental place to think about the current practice of art criticism, its challenges, utility, specificity, as well as its relationship to the construction of knowledge in contemporary society.

In this communication we are specially going to discuss the sphere of criticism and curatorial practice in the art circuit; to approach this vector we will adopt the strategy of dealing first with the concepts that constitute the focus of our concern, that is, we are going to outline the ideas we currently have about criticism and curatorial practice.

Let’s start with the concept of Criticism. How do we define it?

Going over publications on this subject allows us to say the following:

Art criticism is a discourse or a thought developed around works of art, taking into account the singularity of the art work. It is not a discourse about art in general. It is a discourse focused on the work in itself. Criticism observes works produced in the contemporary reality of those who practice it. Criticism is about works of the present, about contemporary art production.

Criticism is about assessing the qualities, the meaning and success in accomplishing the purposes set by the artist. There is, in the practice of criticism, an intention to influence the development of art.

The critical work implies a process of four operations: description (the critic observes and realizes qualities of the work), evaluation (they judge or assess the quality of the work), interpretation (they analyze and present a content or meaning), and expression (the critic communicates, in their speech, their choices, their conceptions, tastes, and feelings). None of these operations happens in isolation, but always interactively. Each one of these procedures is implied in the others. But, in the end, it is through the evaluation that criticism marks its presence and takes place as communication. These dimensions, that we have just highlighted, have been examined since the nineteenth century. They appear in Venturi, in his classic book History of Art Criticism, written in 1936, as well as in more recent contributions such as Baxandall’s (Forms of Intention). Venturi had stated that criticism: “is the judgment produced about an artist or work of art which constitutes the center of the critical activity”. Baxandall observes that criticism is an interpretation projected on the speech about the intentions of an artist in a work or group of art works.

Criticism has been explained, since the nineteenth century, as an independent speech, even as a “literary genre” (a definition, for example, by Dredsner, in the Germany of the end of the nineteenth century, in the book Der Weg das Kunst). This author, by the way, already defines it as a discourse with the job of examining and evaluating its object, as well as aiming to influence contemporary art (the current art of each era).

In the practice of criticism there’s an intricate relationship with Aesthetics. From this subject, Aesthetics – as well as the practice of criticism, emerge criteria for art, which, by their turn, guide evaluation criteria, which can definitely be multiple, variable, and subject to revision according to the moment of art and according to the reader. The relationship between Criticism and Aesthetics is inseparable, dialogic and dynamic. Moreover, criticism, when in its full vitality, focuses on its own assessments, on the justifications of its observations, and reflects on the value of its judgment – criticism reflects on itself. There is a process of “criticism of criticism” in continuous development by those who think about its practice as critics.

Criticism illustrates the communicability and argumentative aspect of the aesthetic experience. It is a level of reception of art and, at the same time, mediation between the work and the spectator.

The critic provides clarification to the reading public and the artists; their role is an intermediation one. The condition for them to perform their job is that the object qualified as a work of art is present in the readers’ social and cultural consciousness. There must be a public prepared to receive and accept the work of art – a public that knows art.

A fact to consider, however, is that the artwork’s enigmatic potential is never exhausted, making this writing about art, this discourse produced by the effect of the artwork on a specialized observer who intermediates art to the public, a discourse that is always transitory, yet well-reasoned.

The transitory quality of criticism opens space for discussion, for debate. Criticism is nothing more than a commentary about art (Lyotard), with the intention of influencing its directions.

Criticism highlights a universe of significations, inserts itself in an epistemological field, creating knowledge. Although it is a commentary, an interpretation, the critic is a reader, but a reader in fabula, as put by Umberto Eco. In criticism we search for meaning in the work of art in a general environment of cultural values, aesthetic criteria and in relation to paradigms in the history of art.

Criticism, with its interpretation, activates the work of art and updates it, that is, sets the communication of the work into motion. Through criticism, the work of art is put in relation with ways of cultural construction that are meaningful for society.

Curatorial practice

The origin of the term curate (from the Latin curare) is linked to the idea of caring, treating.

In the context of the history of culture, and in the sense of “caring, treating, organizing”, the practice emerged a long time ago: it appeared with collectionism and the impulse of collectors – the connoisseurs — to organize their collections and show them, first in the field of antiques, and then in fine arts.

It is worth mentioning that even in the beginning of the museums of modern art (New York’s MoMA being the first), the curator still has the task of caring for and preserving the collection, systematizing it and promoting its exhibition. But, in this museological context focused on modern art, soon a new task is added to those: the one of building the exhibition schedule of art of the current moment, the moment of contemporaneity. Modern art deals with the new; its premise is the idea of rupture.

Likewise, it was up to the conservators of modern art museums to develop a schedule of exhibitions directed to the public and reflect on ways of presenting. This task of promoting shows about the current art production implied the need for criticism; with art shows they perform a job of interpretation and, in this sense, the writing of an exhibition becomes a critical way of art.

It was with the eye on the art of the moment that art museums have identified changes in the language of art that have taken place from 1960 on, and with the exhibitions organized they have legitimized contemporary art with its new semantic. All we have to do is observe the story of the exhibitions in these museums starting in the end of the 1960’s. At this point we will mention some notorious curators in this process, whose examples have helped us to understand the profile assumed by curatorial practice from then on. I give as examples Frenchman Pierre Restany and Swiss-German Harald Szeemann. The sole mention of their names already makes us think about the intimate relationship that, from this moment on, is created between curatorial practice and criticism.

Both curators are art critics, intellectuals that think about contemporary art, research the artist’s production in their time, in search of a new language, systematize movements, and wish to influence the path of art. In the case of Restany, we see him as a great articulator in the New Realism movement; these curators organize epoch-making exhibitions, direct cultural institutions – in the case of Szeemann (the When attitudes become form exhibition and his time as director of the Kunsthalle in Berne); organize great exhibitions like the Venice Biennial (an experience present in the trajectory of both critics) and the Documenta (in the case of Szeemann).

As other critics in other countries, including Brazil, they do curatorial work as criticism practice, once they observe and take action, by organizing exhibitions and writing about the art of their time and its new paths. We can say that the curatorial practice, in its interface with criticism, will be a fundamental factor in the process of the emergence of contemporary art.

Currently, we can see the curator, with the profile of a critic, also acting in the organization of great exhibitions such as biennials. In those, we witness the emergence of a strong dimension of economic interest that calls for highlighting. The curator’s work converges to put new artists with market value into circulation in the system of art. Curators also work for art galleries – they promote exhibitions on demand for cultural centers and other places associated with companies.

The curatorial practice, in the end of the twentieth century and in this first decade of the twenty-first century, has been assuming more and more this profile. It has a relationship with the art market, inserts itself in the economic circuit of art, contributing to add financial value to works of art. In current art, more than Aesthetics or the History of Art, the curator’s motivation comes from the art market.

For Frenchman Dominique Berthet, the curatorial practice that emerged in Europe and in the United States in the 1980’s was marked by this vector of the market. According to this author’s opinion, the curator takes the position of a critic, but as such, will be a spokesperson – not an independent one, but an institutional one. He turns into an ally of art gallery directors and museum directors; he becomes an agent of the system. The author sees in this situation an impasse that, from the perspective of criticism, needs to be studied. Berthet’s conclusion, for me, seems valid for Brazil’s reality, especially starting in the 1990’s.

In the current Brazilian context there is yet one more fact to observe: the presence of the curatorial practice done by art critics, in the projects of cultural producers — a new agent in the art scene, who acts both in the promotion of events of other institutions as well as proposing events to be sold to those institutions, competing for public money allotted to culture support.

In this brief exercise to reflect on what characterizes the practice of art criticism and curatorial work in the circuit of art, the biggest challenge is to size the contribution of the critic and the curator to the field of thought, as specialists, by producing their “writings about art”.

Answers to this challenge – we need to find them!

© Lisbeth Rebollo Gonçalves

Atrás