ART / CATHY CURTIS : Taking a Critical Look at the Role of the Critic

Summer may be the lazy season, but certainly not for readers of this column. These days I seem to be getting an unusual number of letters. Some are filled with apoplectic rage. Others convey restrained expressions of disappointment. A few are even congratulatory. For the most part, the writers are responding to remarks I’ve made recently about certain Orange County art institutions.

It seems to be a good time to review some of the basic issues raised by these letters, and reiterate (or explain more fully) why I write the way I do.

My written opinions reflect my own education, experience, personal quirks, and serious and passionate beliefs. I am not an “objective” art critic; there is no such animal. I am not beholden to any individual or art institution, and I do not write to please any particular faction or person.

Because I have no inherent allegiances--except to freshly inventive art, signs of intelligence and risk-taking attitudes--I have written very positively about certain institutions at certain times, and very negatively about the same institutions at other times. Why? Because of changes in leadership that have affected programming.

When I first came to Orange County eight years ago, I had many negative things to say about the Laguna Art Museum and many positive things to say about the Newport Harbor Art Museum. During the past few years, the Laguna Beach museum has risen in my esteem, and the Newport Beach museum has sunk--not just in my opinion, but also in that of my colleague, art critic Christopher Knight, and others in the art world.

Meanwhile, the Bowers Museum has undergone sweeping changes, not all for the better, and is caught between two competing factions. One wants to see “jewel box” displays of art from other cultures, treated simply (and--as I’ve said in recent reviews--absurdly and ignorantly) as attractive objects. The other faction is interested in mounting exhibitions that clearly demonstrate the way objects reflect key aspects of the culture that produced them.

I certainly hope there won’t come a day when I feel disappointed in all our museums at the same time. But if I did, I would say so. My columns have nothing to do with playing favorites, or arbitrary flip-flopping, or stirring up trouble just for the hell of it.

I often feel frustrated when chatting with longtime supporters of institutions that are going through bad periods. Some of these people seem to subscribe to a curiously self-defeating “My museum, right or wrong” ethos. It’s one thing honestly to believe that everything your leadership is doing is entirely appropriate. But it’s quite another to feel that sheer loyalty to the institution should override doubts about its direction.

Institutions do survive tumult and dissension--and, yes, even recessions and bad directors. Criticism is not disloyal; it’s a means of analyzing ways to improve a place you care deeply about. It’s a matter of looking beyond your own socially pleasant and perhaps long-standing relationship with the institution to its position in the larger world of art and cultural institutions.

Critically supportive board members and other museum “friends” make it their business to keep abreast of museum activities and policies. They have a good grasp of the elements that go into creating an exciting museum profile and don’t accept superficial excuses from management. (Why should a recessionary economy necessitate more run-of-the-mill shows? What does money have to do with staff creativity?).

These people talk--and listen, and give some credibility--to people in the art community who hold differing opinions about a museum’s leadership. They understand that being a good curator is not synonymous with having a pleasant social manner.

They know that a good show is not simply one that has work by a famous artist, or attractive objects made of precious metals. They realize that the primary value of an exhibition resides in the thinking behind the selection of objects and the way they are presented.

Critically supportive board members don’t fall into a resigned, “Oh well, things might be much worse” attitude. Because things might be, real soon, if no one pays attention.

Finally, it is true that part of my job as a critic involves discussing the background of the work in a given exhibition. There’s an enormous hunger for information out there--I hear about it almost every time I’m in a museum or gallery.

Too often, I feel as though I’m trying to tackle a job the curator of the show should have done. But teaching is not the end-all and be-all of what critics do, and furthering institutional public relations has nothing at all to do with my job.

A single review often expresses a range of opinions about different facets of a show, and I trust my readers to absorb the good with the bad and make their own decisions about whether the show is worth seeing--which leads us into a letter I received from a museum docent.

She wrote that she feared my negative remarks in a recent review were detrimental to a museum suffering reduced funding. Even though I gave good marks to some aspects of the show, she wrote, another part of the review--which contained “inappropriate negative comments” about the curator--”destroyed the positives” I had mentioned.

The writer concluded: “Shouldn’t our role include encouraging the public to appreciate art by viewing what is available locally? I certainly think so.”

The question is provocative, but it seems to confuse the role of the docent with the role of the critic. A better question might be: Shouldn’t a critic’s role include encouraging viewers to ask more questions about the quality of local shows presented for their amusement and edification?

By choosing certain shows to review, and ignoring others, I’m already tacitly suggesting what’s worth even thinking about, and what isn’t. Nothing makes me happier than telling readers about shows that are thoughtful and provocative. But part of my job involves discussing the stuff that’s disappointing and dismal.

Community arts cheerleading for the sake of something so nebulous as “art appreciation” is worthless. Some art is worthy of appreciation and some isn’t. I don’t subscribe to the notion that bringing people to art is a sort of holy crusade.

Regarding the issue of reduced funding: Can you name an institution that doesn’t have money problems these days, other than the J. Paul Getty Museum? Does that mean critics are supposed to tip-toe around the sick patient, whispering only kind words? Whatever happened to “Necessity is the mother of invention”?

Also, every matter surrounding the conception and installation of an exhibition is fair game in a review, not just the artist’s style and subject matter. What could be more relevant than the curatorial input into a show--or its apparent lack, particularly if it seems part of a pattern?

In a phone conversation I had with the writer of this letter, she mentioned that friends of hers told her they decided not to see certain art exhibitions because of my negative comments.

Yet once the docent persuaded them to visit one of these shows, she said, they were pleased with what they saw. To my mind, the problem is not with the reviews themselves but with the way some people seem to misconstrue them.

The overall object of reviewing is to urge readers to think more critically about art and art institutions. The best way to take part in this open-ended dialogue is to bring your own interests and biases to the table--as well as your curiosity. I’ve told you my opinion; now you can go and see for yourself.

For example, to help decide what films I’d like to see, I read critics I trust (who seem knowledgeable, sophisticated and broadly in agreement with my own “take” on movies), but I also consider my own interest (or lack of interest) in the director, the stars and the subject matter. I don’t let critics think for me, but I do reflect on what they’ve written, and enjoy comparing my responses to theirs.

There are many more Orange County museum-related issues to discuss, more than can be squeezed into one column. So please keep those letters coming. The most important thing is that we hash these issues out and not keep them to ourselves.