Marcus Kenney, An Untitled Girl, (detail), mixed media on canvas, 24" x 18", 2008

I suppose I can now out myself as having gone to the dark side, as I have inherited the vis. arts beat for Creative Loafing. My first article--a brief on the Marcus Kenney show at Marcia Wood--is due to appear May 14, if I've got the calendar right, so I'll be anxious to get feedback from any and all about what folks are looking for in arts coverage.

Being enmeshed as I already am in the Atlanta art world, my editor is looking over my range of prior art world obligations as we speak, combing the list for potential conflicts of interest (and maybe opportunities?). Can't be too careful given the current arts journalism climate. Still, I've been watching certain other blogger / artist / critic types, trying to get a sense of where the pot holes are.

One thing's for certain, and that's that as far as ethics goes people agree on pretty much nothing. The NAJP released its report The Visual Art Critic in 2002, and although it is neither evaluative nor prescriptive it does at least give a decent overview of what people who write about art are actually doing. (It should be noted that the report only deals with printed media since the art blogosphere in 2001-2002 was basically a cultural backwater populated by a few obsessive cranks in major coastal cities--oh wait a minute, it still is.)

I was surprised to find out that I am in the 1 or 2 percent minority that thinks it's okay for critics to talk to artists about their art in an advisory sort of way--a practice roundly condemned by pretty much everyone. I'm obviously odd man out here, but who else is going to have a broader view of art making in the current moment than those paid (barely) to look at an awful lot of it, think about it, and figure out why it does or doesn't work (yet not be motivated by the narrow concerns of sales, attendance figures, or career advancement)? I'm guessing this reluctance has to do with the idea, promulgated by critics themselves, that they are so all powerful that lowly artists don't stand a chance against the weight of their opinions. Who knows? Clement Greenberg was known to be a tyrant in just this way and it may be no one wants to be seen going around clemming the art world into submission.

looking forward to it.

and if your reviews for the CL are anything close to the level of thought and criticism given to Rentz's recent performance, the atlanta art scene will be all the better for it.

Well, we'll see about that. Here's the first thing I've learned: 350 words get used up real fast.

Congrats on the CL gig.

Congratulations!

(were you at Spruill last night?)

Thanks. No, I didn't go to Spruill. I plan to look at it sometime next week, however. I'd ask you what you thought, but there's a chance I'll be writing on it so, I won't.

Ha - I actually wanted to ask you what you thought - the exhibit reminded me of another group exhibit I saw in New York when I was in my teens, and I was hoping you'd be able to name the New York exhibit/point me to an online gallery with more information.

Well, I'm not entirely sure how old you are so I don't know when you were in your teens--but I doubt I could nail down anything that specifically anyway. I'll see if it reminds me of anything...

350 words is definitely not enough space to work the magic

D'ja see that Debbie? Huh? Huh?

Actually, I'm going to take it as a challenge to see how deft I can get with description in order to be able to squeeze in at least one little grain of insight.