Comments on: Theatre reviewer’s curtain call shows bare stage of criticism

By: Andrew Chalmers

Andrew Chalmers — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:48:56 +0000

You are right to highlight the confused reporting of Cameron Woodhead. It’s a shame he doesn’t have more grace.

No one will miss his writing when it goes.

By: jmendelssohn

jmendelssohn — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:26:55 +0000

Alison Croggon’s blog is really going to be missed, but its disappearance is part of a pattern.
As a part of my current research into the history of Australian art exhibitions I’ve been reading collections of press cuttings from the 1970s and ’80s.
The past is indeed another country. Many solo exhibitions at dealer galleries, and all exhibitions at public galleries, used to receive considered reviews expressing a variety of opinions.
Now the only media coverage of art events is often orchestrated pap from the pr industry.
There is no recognition that writing art criticism requires time, and that this time needs to be paid for.
There are some exceptions. The kids from das Superpaper do a great job – but they are all volunteers. The Australia council does support specialist publications (eg Artlink, Photofile)but the fee for a review is about the same as the price of a meal in a reasonable restaurant. The only newspaper publishing substantial intelligent art criticism these days is the Financial Review. The reason they can afford Doug Hall’s incisive commentary is that he has other sources of income.
The most likely source of new critical voices, junior academics in universities, is effectively silenced by the horrendous culture of penalising those who write for the popular media while promoting those who stick to conference papers and academic journals with little real impact.

By: Anna Gifford

Anna Gifford — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:07:58 +0000

Alison Croggon’s blog was one of the first, and one of the best, arts criticism sites I ever encountered. That aside, it’s great to see Ben write about the dilemma/Catch 22 many arts organisations face with the under-resourcing for arts criticism. The arts are regularly pressured by funding bodies to demonstrate reach and profile - and without the input of critics, I’m not sure how the funders can measure organisations’ artistic (as opposed to economic) return on investment - without going to the often highly biased peer evaluation by other artists. It’s a bigger problem than under-resourcing criticism - it ties into how we value and support the arts.