Is the critic obsolete?

It’s now the turn of the appreciator and the collector

Is it a sign of our times that as art becomes more market-driven, with price the (only?) measure of an artist’s success, the industry is replacing the art critic with the art appreciator? It’s a subtle difference, and yet it tells us so much about how we respond to art, and artists, in the 21st century.

For centuries, the critic was an independent voice that analysed an artist, his oeuvre , his influences, and measured each exhibition, even each individual painting, against that background. You were able to negotiate the space between an artist’s attempt and his achievement, and deal with it in an authoritative manner. A critic pointed out shortcomings, devices of convenience, artistic complacency, the first deterioration in quality, and did it with the elegance of an observer with a bird’s eye-view with a comprehensive sweep over an entire generation of artistic peers and trends.

 

Maybe it was the shrinking space in newspapers and magazines devoted to art coverage (as opposed to art market coverage) or the surge in the value of art — and it would be pertinent to point out that this has been most obvious in the case of Indian art — but at some point the art critic morphed into the art appreciator.

What’s an art appreciator? Well, actually not all that different from an art critic. An art appreciator is so well versed in art and trends and artists that he could well be a mirror image of the critic. The difference is hairline enough to have escaped the notice of many, but it is a crucial one: The art appreciator tells you what to look out for in a painting, what its highlights (and the artist’s highlights) are, what is part of the artist’s — or his peers’ — influence and trends, what the colours/medium et cetera reflect or suggest. The art appreciator celebrates each work, he does not underplay the strengths, nor over-suggest the weaknesses. In fact, the appreciator has nothing negative to say about an artist or an artist’s work.

Is that good, or bad? To understand that, you must understand how the appreciator came to replace the critic. Impoverished for years, the critics found that as the market grew, there was a good living to be made from writing on art — provided it was supported by the trade. A handful of brilliant art critics and writers were roped in by galleries to write the catalogues for forthcoming exhibitions. Catalogue writers make three to four times as much money than if they were to write for magazines and newspapers. There is also more space available to them here than in the mainstream media. There was literally no choice.

Art lovers and collectors look constantly for guidance, and have been influenced by what critics, and now appreciators, have to say. It is ironic therefore that when the art markets have crashed, it is principally for those artists that have been “celebrated” by appreciators.

The problem lies in the interplay of mediums. An art writer who is simultaneously an appreciator and a catalogue writer cannot say one thing in a newspaper and another thing in a catalogue. The device of artifice that he employs suggests only positive connotations and underplays his role as a critic: The nuances are directed towards positive suggestion rather than a critical overview. This has an impact on the collector/buyer that is less informed than it ought to be, and this is where the appreciator shortchanges his constituency.

There are always exceptions — and we have some brilliant critics/appreciators who have remained honest to their task — but the vacuum in understanding art, especially now when so much that is being created has less to do with pure aesthetics but is more driven by leapfrogging across the creative space to make political and social statements, needs derivative analysis. The collector can no longer be guided purely by instinct. How do you view an installation? What does a video communicate? All this and more makes it vital that someone be at hand to guide one across the tortured landscape of contemporary art.

Having created the art appreciator, galleries are now at a loss when art lovers and collectors want more mature dialogue on trends in art — such as many of us hope to hear at the India Art Summit in New Delhi this week — but no longer know where to turn. Many gallerists have recently talked of starting art appreciation courses/evenings on a regular basis to share important information — whether on an artist’s entire oeuvre, an exhibition or, increasingly, just one work of art.

Alas, this is just as likely to be handled by appreciators, thus negating the very effort that will go into making these events a success. Therefore, gallerists as well as investors are more likely to have other collectors come to speak on the highs and lows of artists and their work. The trade has its own interests, the critic is dead, and critical space still remains missing. And, frankly, who is to know more about art and address it in a neutral environment than the seasoned collector?