Is Blogging a Form of Criticism?

I should start by saying that my Dutch isn’t that great and while I did my best to follow the discussion, I may have missed some nuances along the way. I could be talking mousse … but that’s what I was invited here to do so I’m gonna indulge before I head out again. I write, right now, out of duty and respect. I write from a critical position and without time to process, reflect and self censor to provide a more economical and useful answer.

First Response: The Medium is not the Message

Is putting ink on paper a form of criticism? Is spraying white paint out of a squirt gun a form of criticism? Is using the word Mousse a form of criticism? Is recording yourself ranting on skype and putting it on Youtube a valid form of criticism? It would be if you were Allen Kaprow or Jerry Saltz, but not if you’re a 14 year old up past your bedtime. The medium is not the message. It might provide grammar. It might deliver, but it isn’t the blog I’m reading. It is the thoughts and attitudes of the person who fills it. From the very beginning the discussion made me think of Douglas Adams and the answer to everything in the universe, which when delivered makes no sense, because the question failed to ask for a meaningful answer.

Second Response: Democratic Waste Management and Self-Regulation

In any case, this is the topic that brought me here to report on Art Amsterdam and on Thursday there was a panel discussion at the fair surrounding the question. Unfortunately, each member of the public and the three member’s of the panel I spoke with afterwards all seemed convinced that this discussion went nowhere fast, which is sort of ironic, but just how I felt. Like is so often the case in art (and almost anything else), institution necessarily lags behind waving a skeptical finger at young cracks in the foundation. Like many subversive art movements were initially rejected as ‘art,’ new forms of analysis and presentation are likely to be perceived as equally invalid. The main reason for this in Thursday’s discussion, appeared to be that an expert was often missing to confirm the value and legitimacy. It was an issue of confidence, public trust and maintaining decency. It was an issue of waste management and regulation. If you’ve ever read the comments on YouTube, you know that this is an issue. If you’ve heard of journalists at papers like the New York times who consistently lied (and got lies published), you’ll also know this is a problem that is not specific to blogging.

The blogsphere was referred to as Diarrhea and of course this isn’t wrong. Its just dismissive of all that good shit out there, and who knows, what is shit today might be THE shit tomorrow! That doesn’t not mean I want to be confronted by it all today. I agree that there is way too of everything these days and that LESS IS MORE, but what to do about it? This is not a bad thing. It gives us options and adds new narratives. That deals with waste and production should be discussed. As for regulation, yes, yes, yes, but trust is any issue these days and we’re back to questions of democracy. Do a few experts lead the masses? What happens when they betray us? Do the masses determine value? What does it mean when Justin Bieber is no longer in Madame Tussards but standing in the Rijks Museum. Regulation is necessary and reflects an on going search for best social practices. The increased amount of content producers leads to increased diversity, which I do not believe is in and of itself a good or bad thing.  Most of this is seems painfully obvious and old fashioned.

Third Response: No Place for Politics in Criticism

A blog is a medium. It’s a way of presenting content. In and of itself the empty blog is like the empty newspaper page and somehow closer to tabula rasa. It’s how the page is filled and what happens next that allow us to begin assessing its critical or literary merits, the ethical concerns and a manner of reading what is not present. If we just say ‘blog’ we are not talking about content and like many discussions I’ve heard in the last few days (about the fair, about the politics of prizes, about the local galleries that chose not to participate), content appeared as an after thought. Why was this debate taking place at all?  Potential benefits of the discussion, like potential benefits from individual works of art or broader movements were left to leave work early and head straight to the party. They were absent. In my eyes, the moderator failed to pick through the passionate positions and threads of self-preservation. The discussion was poorly led.

It might have been better served by selecting 5 popular art blogs and comparing them to the works of 5 newspaper or magazine critics. At least it would have been a phenomenological discussion that wasn’t weighed down by power games as this one seemed to be. Perhaps the moderator should have focused on questions from the public and aimed to further involve the people who could have a greater role in determining realized answers if they choose to be engaged. Maybe we should have forgotten art and spoken about democracy.

I will tell you one thing, all the people at the table were impressive. They were informed. They were passionate. They were articulate and they seemed to want the same things. They were all obviously very intelligent and colorful characters. They each had their own position. If they were thinking with each other instead of against each other, the results would have surely been more inspiring.

My favorite blogs may or may not be critical. Many just share information. Authors are under pressure to meet never ending deadlines, to get things out there quickly. This is not a problem limited to blog content. Every producer of content knows about this. A cut and paste culture appears. The better the PR, the stronger the base upon which to build the myth and at the end of the day this is still what we are talking about. Which myths will endure? How are they produced? The questions of criticism must deal with the questions of art. Which pieces will remain telling as technology and aesthetics (language and perception) develop into whatever they will become?

Fourth Response: Effectiveness vs Poetry

If a blog is to be immediate and to be critical, here I find myself at a crossroads.

I might disagree with many of my points after I’ve actually had time to think about them. This could be in 5 minutes, an hour or a year. In the last three days I’ve had over 20 meetings, 15 additional interviews, spent 10 hours in the fair, visited exhibitions, ateliers and performances. I’ve gotten drunk. I have not eaten well and I’ve slept on a couch. My mind is not clear, but I’ve promised to respond. Right now I’m late so I really got to wrap it up and don’t feel that great about firing it out where you might find it, but I will.

As I close this piece and get ready to go visit the Eddie the Eagle museum in Amsterdam North, I am well aware of two things:

1: One of the goals of the Art Amsterdam Media Lab was to provide quick coverage of an influential event. This may involve notes on criticism, but I believe criticism must resist the pressures of immediate returns and take time to step back before speaking. Emotional reaction can be a form of criticism, but that would be a different discussion. Eat content without chewing, digest at increased velocity, run to the toilet – upload. This may be the case for bloggers AND print, radio or tv journalists. What comes out is mousse. I can tell you that. You can tell me if it’s criticism and let me know what that means.

2: Because I have to go and we have are supposed to be quick, I’m not going to waste time finding a cute image to accompany the piece and because it’s a blog, I don’t expect anybody to keep scrolling all the way to this point. In fact, I’m fairly convinced that not more than 10 people who know me really well (or were on the discussion panel) will read this, which means that I am not writing for my audience or don’t know who my audience is. Either way, that’s always a good way to make a text less likely to penetrate. To effectively deliver content there must be a grasp of the language vehicle and route.

This is not criticism, it is an honest, unedited and rather longwinded reaction. It must be full of mistakes. It is what it is: a series of new beginnings based on real events that over time will develop or evaporate. The ones that remain will become the basis for a more dialogue on criticism.

Either way, it’s all MOUSSE for now and MOUSSE is fertilizer after all …