December 19, 2009

What Passes for Art Review in the L.A. Times

One area I find severely lacking in L.A. is the standard of critical discourse. More specifically, the Los Angeles Times art reviews. I don't believe I've read an actual review since moving here 2+ years ago. They're called "reviews" of course, but they're really just play-by-play descriptions of the physical properties of each. work. in. the. show...

If I wanted to know what the works looked like before visiting the show I would look to the excellent blogs tryharder or The Flog. Both of which publish images of work from L.A. based shows.

I understand the need for description, people want to visualize the work in deciding whether to visit. It's also needed to support the reviewer's thoughts/reactions. But when the article is 80-90% descriptive fluff, It gets absurd. Take this review on the Nathaniel de Large show at Cirrus Gallery by David Pagel. Out of 464 words, I can only find 66 (two sentences) that come close to a thoughtful reaction. The rest are just fluff. And I say "close to a thoughtful reaction" because the reviewer didn't actually give his reaction. He's used that tried and true formula of describing the reader's (imagined) reaction instead: [emphasis mine]

"You find yourself rooting for De Large's bubbles, hoping that each one lasts longer than it does."

Except I, as the reader, haven't seen the show. How does he know I'm "rooting for De Large's bubbles". He doesn't. And I'm not. I'm rooting for the reviewer to tell me what he's rooting/not rooting for. I'll make up my mind about the bubbles if and when I see the show.

As an aside, I'm reminded of book reports I wrote during secondary education, working as hard as possible to fill the page requirement by simply describing the plot. Every once in a while I would have to put in some sort of reaction to fulfill the paper's requirement but kept it to minimum as the slippery slope of defending that position was steep, being a sophomore who was insecure about his own interpretation and all.

The second sentence of the 66 words I referred to earlier is in the first person, but once again, the reviewer employs another tactic to diffuse responsibility for his thoughts, using the plural "us" instead of the singular me.:

"With a deft touch, De Large gets viewers to experience the world as a loopy adventure, a meandering journey filled with serendipitous twists and wonderful turns that keep us on our toes, almost dancing."

Now the reader and the reviewer are complicit in a conclusion that only the reviewer has determined. A good analogy for this type of relationship would be a stranger ordering for you at a restaurant. It's absurd but yet, according to the reviewer, we're now "almost dancing" through "a loopy adventure". No I'm not. Besides, I don't dance (unless I get really inebriated).

I slog through 402 words of fluff in the anticipation of a reaction and this is all I get? What a let down.

The substitution of reader for reviewer is a widespread problem. It's becoming rare when a reviewer writes in the first person.This substitution is perfectly absent in the recent review on the Gabriel Orozco retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art by Peter Schjeldahl [emphasis mine]:

"Crisp, diagrammatic layouts of exfoliating circles and arcs, on white grounds, the paintings have few fans among critics. I sure don’t like them, although Orozco’s patient remark in their defense gives me pause: “People forget that I want to disappoint.” That strategy, targeting “the expectations of the one who waits to be amazed,” has worked well for him. I vividly remember being outraged in the proverbial manner of a philistine exposed to modern art when, for his first solo gallery show in New York, in 1994, Orozco displayed, on the walls of the main room at Marian Goodman, nothing but four Dannon yogurt lids. I recovered, by and by, to take the artist’s point, which amounted to disappointment as aesthetic therapy.

What I take away from this passage, among other things, is the reviewer's voice, Schjeldahl's voice. Something I can use as context when viewing Orozco’s retrospective, and however my opinion differs from, or is similar to, Schjeldahl's, it will inform my reading of his next review. Trust is what's at stake here and a reader to reviewer relationship is the only way that trust is built.

I read reviews for the reactions of the reviewer. It's not the job of the reviewer to be objective. They're not covering some police scandal or wreak on the 405 where a clear dissemination of the facts is critical. They're expressing opinions. Opinions on art where only an experienced and informed reviewer can make a difference.

I'm not trying to pick on Pagel in particular. This style of art review in the L.A. Times is the standard. Writing what one actually thinks seems to be non-exisitant. It's frustrating.

Since moving to L.A. I've been working to get to know the art scene. This means going to shows, reading reviews, following blogs and tweets, etc. There's a lot to like. Artists have maintained an enviable community. Lot's of large and small galleries that draw good sized crowds, grouped into distinct neighborhoods located all over the city. Co-ops like The Public School that host classes by and for the arts community (or any community really, since you can propose anything), help to keep the arts grounded in a city that could be described as anything but.

I expect the same from L.A. dominate source of arts coverage.