Notes from a heated discussion about media coverage of DC's cultural life

Does the DC art world need more critical writing and reviews of shows?  Probably.  If we get more critical writing and reviews of shows in The Washington Post, will that solve any of the problems raised by Monday night's panel discussion at the Capitol Skyline Hotel? Probably not.

In response to the passionate discussions that took place in the wake of Jessica Dawson's report in The Washington Post on Mera Rubell's December visit to 36 artist studios in 36 hours, the Washington Project for the Arts hosted a panel discussion to discuss "local arts media coverage and its effect on the cultural life of the city."

The panel consisted of moderator and freelance writer Kriston Capps, freelance writer Danielle O'Steen, artist and "Studio Visit" blogger Isabel Manalo, and jack-of-all-trades and writer Jeffry Cudlin.

Some things that were mentioned during the panel and some of my own thoughts interspersed:

1. Jeffry said there are basically two kinds of art writing: publicity generating and "thinky."  We have plenty of the former and not enough of the latter, but we need both. The publicity type of writing generates much needed traffic through art spaces because it is written for and read by a wide audience. The thinky/critical kind asks hard questions about the art and challenges us so that we don't become complacent and self-satisfied. Critical writing is written for other critics and other art world insiders because the general public doesn't tend to read them. I think this distinction is important to understanding the "art market" and the role that art writing plays.

Mostly, art writing that appears in the newspaper is publicity generating, even when it contains anything resembling criticism.  Whether the review is good or bad, it will likely encourage more people to visit the reviewed gallery.  And the more people who come to the gallery, the more chances the gallery has of selling something because it is a numbers game and not because the review hailed or trashed the show. Most people who see an exhibition because they read the review can't remember what the review actually said about the show. Regardless, a good review will not automatically result in sales. 

As a collector, I might go to a show I wouldn't have thought to attend because of a good review, but I will not buy art because of a good review and I will not *not* buy art because of a bad review. Doing either of these things would be ludicrous. 

Many people who attended the panel discussion were upset that the Dawson article wasn't thinky enough for them. It wasn't meant to be thinky!  In fact, I'm not so sure any of the writing in a newspaper is meant to be thinky.  Several suggested that we need a publication dedicated to art reviews in DC. Not a bad idea! It would fill the gap that a paper like the Washington Post can't fill. Wish there were a way to make such a print publication financially viable. Perhaps an online forum would do the trick?

Some were upset that the article was too negative and didn't uplift our art community. Kriston said newspaper writers do not have a responsibility to uplift an art scene and build community.  Their job is to write stories that people want to read. When writers pitch stories to their editors, the stories must have an angle or a hook that will compel people to read the paper. This is the nature of journalism.

2.  Someone complained that the writing in the newspaper is written as if we are teaching people over and over again the same lessons about art collecting. Exactly! I think sometimes we become a little too insulated in our art world and don't remember that there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who aren't part of the DC art "scene" and who need guidance around the art world and who need a way to access the art world. We shouldn't begrudge them that education. The art world should be part of that education proces and it should welcome them!

3. Danielle said that just because it's an art show doesn't mean it should be written about. It needs to be newsworthy to be written about in a newspaper. Kriston pointed out that the Mera Rubell article was written by Jessica in her role as a writer and was not presented as art criticism and, in this case, she wrote about something that had an interesting angle. Many non-art scene people I spoke with found the article to be interesting and the supposedly negative aspects of it didn't even register with them.  I loved the guy who showed up at the panel to learn more and admitted he'd never even heard of Mera Rubell until he read the article. 

4. Jessica reported that Mera observed many artists working in isolation. Several people at the panel discussion pointed out that working alone is inherent to being an artist. Duh.

UPDATE: Isabel Manalo reminded me that during the panel she distinguished between "isolated" and "isolation."  For her, being isolated meant some "external factor forcing a group or individual outside of the mainstream" where as isolation is self-imposed. She did not feel isolated. However, sometimes she might feel isolation, but that's by her own choice.

Mera's quotation from the article: "There are artists who feel extremely isolated here," Mera ventures between bites of frittata. "I've never seen such isolation and loneliness."  A few sentences later she talks about the gap between artists and museums in DC.  I think Mera's observation relates to that gap, but I think she's also making a broader statement.  It's a little unclear.  Regardless, when artists make work, they work alone. That's normal and self-imposed isolation. If an artist feels isolated, that's a huge problem and I think we need to address that.

5.  As a collector, I read reviews and anything that is written about art because I enjoy the intellectual stimulation. The reviews raise questions I might not have thought about and they are great jumping off points for discussion and contemplation. I gain deeper insight into art because I read books and articles about art and I attend talks and panels. I'm a nerd like that. I suppose in this way, I have become a better educated collector and that has honed my ability to make well-informed purchasing decisions. Regardless, I collect art because I am passionate about surrounding myself with beauty and smart ideas and supporting the art community. That's pretty much it.

Many other issues were raised during the panel discussion that were not related to media coverage of the arts but which were very important and I hope we get a chance to talk about them at future forums like this one.

UPDATE:  Good summary and opinion HERE about the panel.