If this is your main interest, I’d like to suggest not just talking about the general issue (of the commercialization of art), but also about the “Chinabear and Chinaman” exhibition specifically.  Some of you have already done this but I’d like to see more. What position does the exhibiton take in the art vs. commodity debate?  Does it see these things as in opposition at all, or does it celebrate the commodification of art?  If we embrace the commodification of art, does that mean that art is valuable just as long as it has market value and perhaps is also at least superficially pleasing?  Or is the exhibition in any way ironic, or critical of the commercialization of art?  In other words, try to link the bigger issues to detailed observations of the art work, so your readers have some idea of how you approached the work, and what significance you think it has.

Even though most of you seem to be interested in this exhibition, I’d also like to make a plea for the “Underneath the Tree” exhibiton.  It’s certainly true that the commercialization of art is an important issue for Hong Kong’s culture.  But another, maybe even bigger issue is Hong Kong’s relation to its past and its local traditions.  We all know that everywhere you turn, some old building is being torn down to make way for a high-rise, and soon you’ll be able to walk from Tsim Sha Tsui to Central (or so it seems).   It seems to me that part of the larger context of “Underneath the Tree” was this phenomenon.  When I spoke with the artist, I was really struck by his remark that he found something strange about this tradition of tossing the oranges in the tree–why would it be strange to a local Hong Kong person? The photos themselves had the look of something old, something you might find in your parents’ or grandparents’ desk, rather than something recently photographed and printed.  I don’t know if this was any part of the artist’s intention, but this thought of older traditions that seem to be slipping away gradually stayed with me and really shaped my experience of the works.  I’d be interested to hear if any of you had similar thoughts–and especially interested to hear from those of you who haven’t posted anything in a while!

I’ve been quite busy these past few weeks and I’m leaving Hong Kong in less than two weeks.  I’ll try my best, though, to say something useful about your words and ideas.  Keep them coming!

The end of the semester is getting close now, and I know everyone’s schedule is only getting busier by the day.  I wanted to give you a friendly reminder not to delay working on your critiques.  Remember that I’m here to advise you, so send me notes, ideas, outlines, drafts, etc.  Some of you expressed interest in individual, face-to-face consultations, and I’m very happy to do that.  But my schedule too is getting busier, so please don’t put off consulting with me until the last possible moment.

So, how are things coming?  Give me a sign, someone!

A guiding principle for writing art criticism I very much like is one I borrowed from the film scholar David Bordwell. It’s very simple.  Good art critical writing is made up of:

Ideas + Information + Opinion + Good or Great Writing

I’ll say something about each as it applies to the writing task you have in front of you now.

Ideas

How does the artwork fit into, resist, a particular relevant art theory you think is interesting or impoirtant? What does the artwork say about the expressive and other aesthetic possibilities of its medium?  What is the cultural significance of the work?  How does the curator’s work interact with, promote, or conflict with the artist’s intended meaning?  What does this say about the relation between artists, curators, and audience members?  How does the work connect to and express important human values and concerns?

Don’t let your friends in other courses tell you otherwise – you are especially qualified to draw out these connections for your audience, who will very likely not have the specialized background you do.  Your critique, whether it is an artistic or curatorial one, will be richer, more interesting, and more worth your readers’ time if you can show how it is connected to larger concerns.

Information

Describe the work.  How does it make use of its medium?  What is its medium?  Has the artist done anything unusual?  How is the work different from other works in the same medium?  What was it like for you to spend time with the work?  What has the artist or the curator done?  What did he or she intend to do?

It can be incredibly helpful to your readers if you can put your chosen work in a historical context.  It’s not that useful to say that Jackson Pollack (to take a familiar example) was an important painter.  It’s much better to give some historical context so your readers can grasp his importance as someone who used the medium in a way that allowed the painting to become a direct record of his bodily movements. It can be very helpful to compare or contrast the work you’re writing about with other works you know well.   Draw on this knowledge!  One of my favorite writers on photography, Geoff Dyer, claims to know little about the techniques of photography, but he can draw the most interesting and illuminating connections between photographs, and with other artworks.  I always come away from his writing with an pleasantly fresh appreciation of the works he writes about.  Don’t hesitate to use your knowledge of other artworks, and indeed of things outside the art gallery, to bring out significant features of the work.

If the work makes a reference to some specific cultural practice, describe it for your reader and explain how the work responds to that practice.  Sometimes artists make use of techniques in ways that might not be obvious to the average audience member. If you think these facts are relevant to the understanding of the work, then explain them.  And again, you will often have a direct access to the artists and curators that your readers do not.  If their remarks about their work are illuminating, suggestive, or even if they seem to be in conflict with your interpretation of the work – this is often information that will help guide your audience through the work.

Opinion

Is the work good or bad?  Does it deserve your reader’s attention, or not?  Has the curator successfully presented the artist’s work, or not? As a kind of expert on art, your audience will to some degree rely on your judgment. But of course be careful to back up your evaluations.

Good or Great Writing

Books have been written just on this item, and in some respects good or great writing is a matter of loads of practice writing and loads of time spent reading good prose.   But there are a few virtues of any really good critical prose.  The highest virtue is clarity.  Art criticism is polluted with a lot of writing that uses jargon to sound deep.  Sometimes we do need to use specialized vocabulary, but don’t write in a way that alienates your readers or puts them to sleep.

Something about art excites you – otherwise you would not be doing what you’re doing now.  Try to give some sense of this excitement about art, a sense of importance in a full life, in your writing.

Perhaps that’s a good place to pause for a breath.  As soon as I have some pieces of your writing (hint hint!) I can help with some more specific advice.