Criticism

I don’t write any art criticism anymore, but for four years I produced public opinions full-time. I owned a piece of paper declaring that I’d mastered art theory, but I found that it was hard work convincing anybody else on the internet.

ArtInfo, back between when it became ArtINFO and when it became BLOUIN ARTINFO, called me “influential” and my reviews “buzzed-about.” At one point, a few local papers voted the blog I was editing as New York’s best art blog. At another point, Jonathan Jones referred to my work in the Guardian’s art column, noting astutely that my review “simply degenerates into swearing.” This was a high point.

I also got to show some stuff in an art gallery, which was neat. I’d never done that before.

I got into art criticism because I thought it was hard; it was a long way from anything I knew how to do. That assessment didn’t really change. I think the highest calling of criticism is to be the first guy on the dance floor, out there looking like an idiot, but occasionally knowing enough moves to get everyone else to join in. I’m glad some people liked what I did.

You should be able to find most of what I’ve written on Contently and Art F City. There’s about 60,000 words of it, some of it good. I don’t really make any effort to maintain it, though, so if something looks wrong, it probably is.