I particularly like "new media" art criticism. More and more I'm starting to notice that I look for the "comments" button when I'm reading reviews on an online version of a print paper, or even my remote control when I'm watching the news. When someone writes something particularly stupid in the Post, you can't really call them on it, no matter how much they deserve it. The ability to instantly augment or criticise someone's criticism is a great thing. Instead of being told from on high "this is what this is, and what it means", the dialogue that happens on blogs is often valid and exciting. A "letter to the editor" in a newspaper means next to nothing- because the immediacy is lost.

I'm tired of the traditional critical system (though it has treated me well personally). It is necessarily driven more by its limitations than by the merits of the work being considered- or not considered. For example- there is plenty work more deserving of Art in America and the other big magazines' attention than what you see there. You never see this work because the galleries can't afford to advertise, and thus attract the writers. As is constantly bemoaned in the blogosphere, the Post is severely, reprehensibly limited in its coverage. The space limitation limits the criticism, and limits the art scene to an incalculable degree. Does Britney Spear's exposed gunch deserve more coverage (no pun intended) than the DC art scene? The market says that it does. No matter how fantastic your show or mine is, it will never be as interesting to the mythical "general reader" as a frazzled pop-star's goon-ya.

But in the blog world, things are less market driven. If you're interested, plenty of verbage is given to celebrity meltdowns and melodrama, but this doesn't keep people from discussing other things, as it does in traditional media. Plus, folks like myself get to chime in their dumb 2 cents worth whenever they feel like it. This more than offsets any drawbacks presented by reduced editorial oversight. When oversight is required, it is gleefully provided by the peanut gallery.

I completely agree with your comments the parameters that seem to surround traditional art criticisms columns. I read a review this morning in the New York Times on the 2007 Armory show that was so disappointing. The 'art' columns in newspapers are usually just a blow by blow of who was there, a bland description of the layout, and the general watery impression of audiences. They are so boring! No one gets personal, or gets a little risky in describing how they look at art. There is such nervousness around art talk- but then, I blame academics as much as newspaper quotas.

Keri

PS. Hi Kriston, I just discovered your blog, its wonderful!

But Blake Gopnik does think I'm stupid. And with good reason!

Seriously, I'll try to tamp down my impatience with all these types of discussions long enough to say that I like the first part of the panel's title as it places the emphasis on the broader term of arts writer. As I never tire of pointing out, a lot of what's involved in online/blog art writing isn't criticism, or not as usually conceived. It's partly that, but also partly shop talk, gossip, news, public introspection, a conversation. The people involved aren't necessarily only writers, whether freelance or with a publication, but art professionals, artists, informed viewers, etc. To the extent that it contributes to public opinion--the tyranny of on dit--it can be a powerful thing, so I suppose it's ok to wonder and worry about how it works. But at the same time, a discussion of an exhibition that begins by describing what the writer had for breakfast isn't done to violate any standards of criticism, it's just something written in a different mode. What we call art criticism is only one way of talking about art, and a recently developed and by no means inevitable one at that.

Done! Now I must go beat my head against the wall.

Keri!

I read about your show in SF—congratulations!

On the Armory, well, Paddy Johnson's take is more insightful and more cutting and just a great deal cleverer than Holland Cotter's. ("Art is big business." —or— "At a time when everyone is trying to be a little different, Ms. Kielar is even more different, without forcing the issue." Thanks, HC.)

Hi Kriston,

I was thinking about something that ties in with JL's remarks.

Traditional artmags always do extensive surveys about their readership;they go to lengths to put together demographics for their readership - I'm sure you've been asked to fill out the odd survey - you know, Are you between the ages of 18-25, 25-20 etc. Do you make between 18,000 - 25,000, 25,000- 30,000 etc. Do you have a high school education, B.A., M.F.A., P.H.D. etc. I don't know about you, but whenever I am pressed to fill one of those things out I embellish the heck out of it. I sort of wonder how accurate an impression of their readership these publications can really have.

On the electronic circuit - everyone has stat meters that let them know what time of day people are visiting, what they read while they're at the site, how long they read, where they go afterward...this is not without it's brave new world implications but it has a surprisingly intimate upside in terms of being more like a living exchange. I don't (think) I know the person from Prince Albert Saskatchewan who visits simpleposie everyday but I try to have something to trade with that person since they continue to drop by to read what I write in Toronto.

You've probably thought about this already but that would be part of my two cents.