On Thursday the debate on whether or not blogging was a valid platform for art criticism was held. I was in the debate with four other speakers, and a moderator. The debate was mostly in Dutch, and I followed along as best I could before responding in English (sadly my spoken Dutch is not really up to snuff yet).
I won’t dwell on the underlying absurdity of the panel, because let’s face it, asking if a blog is a proper platform for art criticism is an unanswerable question on the level of “what is art?”. Despite this, the panelists were informed and felt strongly about their positions, which varied along a continuum of a one panelist likening blogs to diarrhea to me waving my smartphone in the air and quoting comments from my friends on Facebook.
To summarise the anti-blog position, it was argued that blogs suffer from a lack of consistency and professionalism. It never fails to amaze me how people are seduced by physical objects and the apparent stability that they imply. When I think about the typos I’ve spotted in national newspapers, and the short life cycles of many print publications (Sassy Magazine once attempted a magazine for boys called Dirt, I’m sure you can also think of countless short-lived magazines, newspapers, presses, etc) I conclude that professionalism and consistency may be slightly easier to find in print publications than online, but this doesn’t mean that they are without fault.
Another point was raised about ethics, and how nearly all print publications have a code of ethics that they follow which prevents obvious nepotism, et cetera. To counter this supposedly iron-clad objectivity in the print world, I cited the example of a disgraced writer at the Village Voice who was sacked after it was revealed he had ties to an art fair that received coverage. What I failed to mention in the debate (and really wish I had remembered to say) is that much of the pressure on this writer to live up to an ethical standard was raised through blogs, particularly Tyler Green’s excellent Modern Art Notes.
A side point that I raised that is the proverbial elephant in the room is how all of this will be funded. Newspapers and magazines grow increasingly desperate for cash and are slashing cultural coverage. Bloggers are picking up the slack, and it’s true that some of them can’t spell and some have very shallow knowledge of the field, but there are also excellent blogs with genuinely critical reviews and viewpoints. The biggest problem that online media has raised is that readers now expect everything for free. Where will long-term, serious, and essential but possibly “unsexy” projects in journalism go, if papers won’t pay for it anymore, and it’s unrealistic for bloggers writing in their underwear at home and earning only pennies on Google ad revenue to perform that function? What choice do the papers have about cuts if physical circulation numbers are plunging, and even the New York Times can’t make a go of charging people for online access? (Anyone remember “Times Select“? Let’s also wait and see what happens to their current paywall system, but I’m doubtful about it.)
I ended by saying “ready or not, here it comes”. The point is, we can have a debate that points out the flaws of blogging, and I can counter by pointing out the same flaws in the print media world, but we can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Criticism on blogs is here to stay, the question will be how writers earn a living and how readers can find the best content.
Art Amsterdam Medialab 