The journalist vs. the critic

In this corner, the arts journalist.

vv

Pugilisticly brash, sharp-tongued and often quick witted, the arts journalist is a favorite with editors.

vv

Providing snappy copy with tantalizing quotes, the article often lacks the one thing that is fundamental to good art writing: an understanding about art!

vv

These articles play well to the novice public, but to arts specialists, it is obvious that there is a void of background knowledge about the subject. How can this be?

vv

Let's compare this to sports writing. In a sports article there is implicit feeling that the writer knows the rules and the in/outs and history of the game he or she is covering. But oftentimes in arts journalism, it is painful to read such glaring errors and well-meaning, but misguided words. The reader walks away from the article having only been momentarily entertained but certainly not enlightened.

vv

Now in this corner, the art critic.

vv

The art critic does not need to quote heavily from the artist or museum director to make a point about the art. The critic is confident enough in his or her subjectivity and can provide readers with an interpretation or a reading of the art. Journalists lack that type of insight and criticality.

vv

And to get back to sports writing. One reason why I prefer it to arts journalism, not only due to its intelligence - as it doesn't dumb itself down to the reader like arts journalism tends to do - it also consistently discusses ethical issues. So as a reader I feel I have also gained some insight about the world I live in. Now why can't arts journalism step up to the plate? (oops, mixed metaphors here: jump into the ring? throw down its gloves?)