The Crisis of Criticism

by Maurice Berger (Editor)

Almost more than artists, art critics today form an elite class that legislates cultural tastes. The Crisis of Criticism is a collection of brilliantly argued, provocative essays that address the problematic nature of the critic’s authority and responsibilities. In it, today’s leading critics, curators, and artists address the questions at the heart of criticism. Do critics grant cultural permission or is their work merely descriptive? Is there such a thing as critical activism? How can critics bridge the gap between a sometimes hermetic art community and the public? Are critics consumer advocates, sycophants, or artists in their own right? Maurice Berger assembles the top critics in each field to address the problematic nature of the critic’s authority and responsibilities. Contributors include Richard Martin, bell hooks, Jim Hoberman, Arlene Croce, Wayne Koestenbaum, Joyce Carol Oates, and others.

Genres: Art, Nonfiction, Criticism

172 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1998

Reviews

[Lobstergirl · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is one of those books that is a snapshot of the nineties. AIDS, the various brouhahas centering on the National Endowment for the Arts, the ubiquity of the phrase "race, sex and class" (looking at you, bell hooks), the "other," all loom large in most of these essays.

The last essay, Sarah Rothenberg's "Measuring the Immeasurable," stays almost entirely free of 90s buzzwords and jargon as she discusses musical performance and how we, and critics, evaluate it. She begins with a mention of the premiere of Dvorak's "New World" symphony and how the critic who reviewed it in 1893 for the New York Daily Tribune included fourteen musical examples in his review, for a total of eighty bars of music. Crazy! The idea that any ordinary newspaper reader would be able to read music, or would find musical bars necessary in a music review, is astonishing to us today. That is a lost world. Today (or rather in the 90s, when Rothenberg was writing), audiences are torn over David Helfgott's performance of Rachmaninoff's Third: sentimentalists see him as heroic, critics rightfully see his pianistic ability as unfit for the stage.

I would also recommend Michael Brenson's essay "Resisting the Dangerous Journey: The Crisis of Journalistic Criticism." Referring to art critics, Brenson writes, "I am sick of people saying in private what they will not say in public, or saying in private the opposite of what they say in public." Amen to that! Incidentally this is not just an issue in journalistic art criticism, but in every aspect of journalism. Thick is the bullshit among our papers of record. Rare to the point of extinction is the journalist who will call out another journalist.

Wayne Koestenbaum's essay "Why Bully Literature?" is interesting not because his ideas have merit but because he is emblematic of a type of happytalk that is still going on 16 years later. "Too often a book review is a scene of scapegoating, and any pleasure we take in reading it stems from the atavistic joys of being a voyeur to someone else's suffering," writes the man. He says he is not suggesting that "we replace objective evaluation with unthinking hugs" or "gold stars." But he is suggesting that evaluation should not be "the primary function of criticism" and he feels that whatever "abuse" a reviewer might feel towards a book should "take place in privacy, prior to the writing of the piece, so that the books deemed unworthy are not reviewed, freeing the page for works that deserve notice." Koestenbaum nobly continues, "I suggest that the exercise of sanctioned aggression known as book-reviewing be retired and replaced by passionate acts of advocacy." (I feel like for the most part, his advice has been taken up, in newspaper reviews, on book blogs, on websites. You expect a book reviewer to like a book now. Last fall Buzzfeed announced it would ban negative book reviews. It's almost shocking if a professional critic, or a freelancer writing for an organ like the New York Times, advises you that a book is not good.) Koestenbaum seems to think that reviews are for books. But books can't read. Reviews are for readers.

[Lorraine · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is good for what it is: a collection of essays. I don't know why the rating is so low -- I think if you approach it having already taken a side in the cultural wars, specifically in regard to the transcendent position (or not) of aesthetics -- then it won't have anything to say to you. Also depending on what you're interested in/working on some essays might be irrelevant to your reading. It's an interesting document of the kind of links critics make between politics and culture, but only if you're interested in taking a meta view of the subject.

[Danial Yazdani · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very comprehensive and engaging collection of essays about the crisis of criticism in the US in the 90s, but nevertheless still a very relevant read. Standouts includeThe Film Critic of Tomorrow, Today”, “Why Bully Literature?” and “Measuring the Immeasurable”. I think every English major should read these essays, for their work in textual analysis often involves hues of criticism. Each writers’ conceptualisation of the practice and their defining of criticism’s deficits was incredibly insightful and holds the attention of the reader as it progresses.

[Anthony Salazar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Too interdisciplinary for my taste, though nonetheless interesting as a primer on academic/journalist criticism.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Critics talking smart about criticism and art.

[Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book despite almost giving up on it after disliking a few of the earlier essays. I kept reading though and enjoyed all the rest. 7/9ths wothwhile essays.