perhaps a descriptive mention at best from those two publications..

"In 2002, a survey conducted by the Colombia University National Arts Journalism Program found that judging art is the least popular goal among American art critics, and simply describing art is the most popular."
James Elkins E.C. Chadbourne Chair in the Department of Art History, Theory, and Criticism - School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

As an exercise, match the four sets of keywords extracted from art writings (labelled below as a-d) with the names of the four authors (w-z) who wrote them. Next, identify which two sets of writings are critical in nature, and which two are descriptive. In making your decision do not refer back to the original texts.

a) allude; blurring; fine line; gift; homage; metaphysical; passion for subtlety; slyly

b) depress; direct confrontation; elusive; inspire; maturity; poetic seductiveness; surprises

c) sharp eye; rich physicality; mundane noir; palpable space

d) ominous; noir; rich; weirdly seductive

w) Vince Aletti
x) R. C. Baker
y) Kevin Freitas
z) Robert L. Pincus

Finally, consider the implications for a possible institutional theory of criticism.

And the answer is... ?

Exactly.

OK, I'll bite and at the same time try to be as non-descriptive as possible. But first, an introduction to a review I wrote on Scott's recent exhibit in La Jolla, that was never published nor finished.

“I use the camera to describe a world I don’t see everyday. My intention is to reveal things which take time to witness, and are generally overlooked. We live in an age that compresses time and values immediacy. I seek a prolonged alternative,” Scott B. Davis says to describe his current photos on display, from the “Nocturnes” and “Land of Sunshine” series, at Joseph Bellows Gallery in La Jolla. They are velvety, dark, airless, and dreamy prolongations frozen on film that nullifies the subject’s presence, or in this case, a recognizable monument or landscape captured on platinum or palladium prints, but only, when night falls.

A bit more precise I believe, in terms of the subject matter photographed, than the other two reviews, but still highly descriptive.

It's obvious, that any person writing about art and about a particular exhibit, has to for the benefit of the reader, provide a certain amount of description of what is being looked at. It is not (hopefully) always pontification, of which Davie's institutional theory of art seems to imply I believe, or at best, implies that art criticism, is an arbitrary reflection (artificial) on an artwork (original). Everyone knows, that you can't critique an original anything, even less so, an original idea.

My first commentary was simply in reaction to the use of the word "critical" followed by "mention" which struck me as an oxymoron. What does he mean by this? A critical mention and not a critical review? Is it only critical because it was written by a critic, or found in the Village Voice or the New Yorker? Is it understood to be critical because writing about art is always critical and never journalistic? What is your defintion of critical, is the most obvious question to ask. One that Elkins is asking himself and others, fully knowing that art criticism and writing is not a perfect science, riddled as it were, with its own self-perpetuating dogma.

"Art criticism can content itself with description, but then it loses the run of itself, becomes something else, dissolves into the ocean of undifferentiated nonfiction writing on culture."
--James Elkins

I wonder, if no one is going to write about art, who's going to talk about it?

Damn - this is getting interesting.

Two thoughts:

1) My rough definition of "critical" would encompass some unspecified combination of description, analysis, and judgment (including the possibility of zero content in one or more of these categories). I personally consider analysis a critical tool in both senses of the word, as it enables a writer to perform useful work in response to an original thing, by the simple act of identifying the thing as original, and presenting a critical analysis to support the assertion.

2) In my previous comment I was going to postulate a word-count theory of art criticism. I backed off because it seemed potentially flippant, but now I think it's central to this conversation. Check out the Wikipedia commentary behind the above link to contemplate some intriguing conventions governing word count in certain formal types of writing (in particular, the difference between theses in philosophy and visual arts).

• Is it possible that your thoughts on this topic may incorporate implicit assumptions regarding word count?
• As a thought experiment, what would you consider the briefest possible example of valid art criticism?
• Are capsule reviews critical? Are they potentially?

Regarding your question about no one writing about art: for me that's part of the bigger question of whether anyone will be writing about anything. Technology may yet yield functional post-literate societies: contrary to 553 years of Western religion, the written word is not sacrosanct.

• Is it possible that your thoughts on this topic may incorporate implicit assumptions regarding word count?

  It may be a criteria for determining what type of document one is writing, and on the other hand, a sort of handy label that gives the reader an implicit hierarchy of importance and authority to the text they're reading - if not there would be no reason I think, to state that a Doctor of Philosophy (to earn the degree) requires a 100,000 word thesis and only 20,000 words for a Doctor of Visual Arts. It's absurd to think that someone in philosophy needs more "word count" to get her ideas across, that the subject is so vast, and visual arts so limited, that you need an extra 80,000 words to make your point.

  I believe the word count is more of an issue when it comes to publishing. To give you an example, CityBeat limits current art reviews to 350 words; it is personally, a daunting task to intro the piece, describe the artwork, form an opinion, state it clearly, argue it, (sometimes put it into a social, political, or art historical context), and then conclude. If you're asking is it constrictive, thus leading the writer to make a choice - pure opinion or pure description, and does it influence your style or "angle" of attack, then yes it does. But you still have to write something that makes sense and is coherent, no matter what the word count. I guess this is the point.

  There is no implicit assumptions about word count in art criticism that I've found or read about. The length of what is written, dictated or not by an editor or a catalog you're writing for, has no bearing on its authority or place in the upper echelons of higher learning. It is the content and clarity of what you're writing that is required (ideas expressed, risks taken etc.), then it breaks down it seems, between what the critics want to see in each other's works - ie stronger opinions, better documentation, more historical references, its contemporaneity etc.
  
  

• As a thought experiment, what would you consider the briefest possible example of valid art criticism?

I'm being slightly facetious but here goes, from a last interview given by Greenberg before his death in Frieze magazine, and reported by the art critic Thomas McEvilley who wrote his obituary in the same publication: "In it he says that what the critic really does is point around at works and say 'Good, bad, good, bad, good, bad.'"

Art criticism's brevity or unending babble, to me, doesn't make a difference, its sense is in the words chosen which are either - good, bad.



• Are capsule reviews critical? Are they potentially?

Going back to what I said about the restrictions of publishing, BTW, not everyone has difficulty limiting themselves to word count, I do believe there's a part of "intent" and "audience" to be considered by each publication that determines what type of review they need and want. Sure, capsule reviews can be critical, but is that there best use? Meaning, it's like taking a shotgun to go hunt mice, and so, is the intent journalistic (who, what, where, when) or is it critical (how does the artist place herself in relation to her art, society, history, peers, movements ad nauseam). What is art criticism's purpose? Given the choice, I'd rather err on the side of my own opinions - good or bad - than be confortable with impressions.