One idea or another
Someone recently told Artreview that its job was to separate good from bad, the wheat from the cha when it came to art. Either because there was so much art knocking around that no one could see it all (particularly with new waves in the ong) or because people don’t have time to think for themselves these days. Which, going by the state of politics today (in the and in other places similarly in turmoil) seems like a very convincing argument. But anyway, Artreview’s not here because it wants to be a prime minister or anything (except a prime minister of art of course, in which case it would only be a first among and be working with a cabinet of in which of the party would be represented). Or maybe the statement about what Artreview was supposed to be doing came up because art today is all about questions and never about answers and that’s what magazines like Artreview are there for. To do what art does not. To gloss over its failure to be useful. Or for anything. Particularly after the recent Documenta and the furore that trailed after it. After which we all know that it must be for and against nothing. In case it triggers anything. Which it isn’t supposed to do either. Indeed, you’d be forgiven for thinking that in art these days it’s best to do nothing. But where would the ‘artworld’ be if that was the case? (What did you say? In London and Paris and Los Angeles and Miami and New York and Basel and Seoul for the fairs? Shame on you! You’ll be adding Shanghai and Singapore to that list next! And then you’d have a whole world… oh, right.)
After the person had told Artreview what it was supposed to be doing (and Artreview did think that was properly artistic, because we rely on artists to tell
us what we’re supposed to be doing so that we don’t actually have to do it – care for each other, support the powerless, or those powerless people who have a spare £6.95 knocking around in their pockets, give voice to the voiceless, highlight inequity and inequality, give agency or an idea of it to people who have none) they walked o. They didn’t ask the usual questions: what makes something good or bad? Why do so many art magazines review the same group of exhibitions in the same venues while masquerading as diverse compendiums? Aren’t magazines like Artreview just another tool used to support the imperialist supremacy of the English language in the sphere of art? They just walked o. Giving Artreview an approving slap on the back. Leaving Artreview to chew over the fact that it had better questions to ask of itself than anyone else did. Questions it’s been trying and failing to resolve since 1949. And the trying and failing and trying again is part of what keeps it going. That keeps it coming back month after month. (And you thought it was deadlines? Tsk tsk tsk, Artreview is much more self-centred than that!)
But in all fairness it’s not just Artreview’s ego at work here. Or the need to give itself something to do every day, or its need to feel more busy and important than anyone could possibly imagine that drives it on and on and on… Rather it’s the cloud of uncertainty in which it operates, the fact that what might be good or bad, worth seeing or unworthy of a fixed stare, is something of a moveable or changeable feast. That there are not so many absolute values or essential truths to be found. Although, that said, you might be beginning to think that this all leads to a final statement of accounts that would read: 73 years, 1 idea (the moveable or changeable feast – pay attention!). Or another. Artreview