Claudia Page - Individual Issue Study

Negative Criticism

In “Negative Criticism,” Sean Tatol shares his reasons as to why the days of true art criticism are over: Contemporary critics do not understand the underlying purpose of criticism, and they also have a fear of saying the “wrong” thing . Tatol appropriately begins the article stating his credentials and background. He is an art critic who publishes primarily on his own website, the Manhattan Art Review. While Tatol’s vocabulary alone clearly indicates a background in writing and the arts, verifying his success gives more reason for the reader to hear out his opinions. “Kritic’s Korner” is a section within the Manhattan Art Review that relies on a 1-5 star rating system for his reviews. Tatol goes on to explain that “Kritic’s Korner” was originally an afterthought feature: a simple way to give impromptu reviews that get straight to the point, as his star ratings are accompanied by a paragraph at most. Tatol shares: “I quickly realized that my habits were more suited to going to galleries every week than to working regularly on longer pieces, that there weren’t many shows I wanted to write about at length, and that a regular stream of blithe, off-the-cuff reviews would attract more attention than intermittent longer essays.” 1

This shorthand format, although successful, goes against the previous norms for writing about art. Tatol brings up the point that there is a distinction between critics in the “art world” and film, music, or book critics. The latter write for the everyday person, but the everyday person cannot afford to buy the art reviewed by “high art” critics.1 This begs the question: What purpose do art critics serve, and who is their target audience? Art critics have an undeniable influence in the art world, but there is an important distinction to be made: generating foot traffic for a show is not equal to generating income in the art market.1 It may seem like an obvious thing to point out, but there is a misconception that art critics cannot appeal to the everyday person. How an art critic reviews has everything to do with who wants to engage.

Tatol spends a considerable amount of time discussing the influence art critics can have on members of the art world outside of persuading investors. Art critics lead as an example for how to engage with art. In his essay, Tatol recalls his relatable experience of being a teenager beginning to form opinions on art: “I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about.” 1 He goes on to explain that the early days of judging art involves “parroting opinions from elsewhere” with no real sense of being able to make your own observations.1 While this experience often involves an unavoidable phase of pretentiousness based on ignorance, it is how they learn to see and think about art for themselves. Tatol adds: “The point is not for the reader to fully subjugate their own judgment to the critic’s, but to recognize and respect that the critic’s sensibility represents some understanding of the scope of their subject, albeit in a contingent, individualized way.” 1 Art criticism is less of a yes or no, or right or wrong, but instead about the experience and reasoning behind how the critic got to that conclusion. In Tatol’s opinion, consumers of art criticism, especially negative criticism, should value the author’s ability to think more than if the reader agrees with the critic’s specific judgments. In part one of his response essay to Tatol’s “Negative Criticism,” Ben Davis agrees: “This ‘it’s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game’ posture captures something vital, which is that strong opinions can be valuable just because they are strong opinions. By provoking debate, they force people to clarify, to themselves and to others, the standards by which they themselves do or don’t like something.” 2 That being said, it is still important to be convincing. Critics must be held to some sort of standard. 

Davis also brings up the point that there can be multiple levels of standards, which Tatol does not consider. Tatol negates the existence of guilty pleasures, finding the “I like what I like” argument as a poor excuse. The example given by Tatol is that a child will always pick The Very Hungry Caterpillar over Moby Dick, but an adult should always vouch for Moby Dick being objectively better.1 Davis finds this relevant to mention, as the two books serve entirely different purposes.3 They exist on different playing fields, and The Very Hungry Caterpillar ranks high in its category. One could even argue that The Very Hungry Caterpillar is the Moby Dick of children's books. 

Judgment is a natural part of experiencing art. It is not that people do not judge these days, it is that there are a multitude of reasons as to why they are hesitant to put those thoughts out into the world. Tatol’s argument for the fear of negative criticism is that “the mere suggestion that some things are better than others, particularly in the arts, is met with confusion and hostility.” 1 He acknowledges there is risk involved in doing so, and that there are “dangers that criticism can pose to enjoyment.” 1 Ultimately, Tatol believes that critics should not live in fear that their judgments will age poorly because it is inevitable that they will, therefore writers should take the risk anyway. As a result of doing so, Tatol believes the critic fulfills their duty to show others how to understand and judge art. He accepts that art is subjective by experience, but believes saying it is entirely subjective robs the viewer of intellectual growth and forces everyone to exist on a mediocre level. 

There are more reasons, though, which can cause critics to be hesitant to be “too negative.” In another response article to Tatol’s piece, David Carrier and Laurie Fendrich add to the conversation. Carrier believes there is a happy medium to being a critic: “If you like everything, then your positive reviews are meaningless. But, conversely, if you are too critical about too much contemporary art… You really have taken yourself out of the art world because you find the entire activity essentially flawed.” 4 Members of the art world can debate the effects of criticism for the rest of time, but there is one valid cause not previously mentioned for why contemporary critics are less negative: money. Carrier is a former professor with experience in art criticism as a hobby, and he shares that it is incredibly difficult to support yourself financially these days as an art critic.4 He made time to write criticism pieces on the side because he sees the value in it, but was forced to keep it as just that, a hobby, because it was more stable to make money as a professor. It should not come as a surprise that the average person feels forced to go where the money is in today’s economy. Also touching on the money rebuttal, Fendrich points out that “No one in the art world wants to pay for advertising if there’s even a small chance of being trashed.” 4 There is also an underlying fear of being disliked by peers. Whether they want to admit it or not, artists just want approval and feel defeated when they receive honest criticism, even when they understand the value in criticism. 

Pros and cons exist to writing negative reviews, and wording is important. Davis lays it out by sharing:  “By default, a review that says, ‘this art gallery claims x is good, but I think x is bad!’ is more interesting than ‘this art gallery claims x is good, and I also think x is good.’ The former has conflict, and conflict attracts attention.” 2 However, saying “Lots of people think x, but they’re wrong” comes across differently, and not in a good way. There is a difference between having a contrasting opinion and outright saying someone else’s opinion is wrong.

Tatol’s “Negative Criticism” brings up a more interesting point than the title’s assumed take of “contemporary art critics are too soft these days.” That is, that negative criticism is important because it offers new ways of seeing for both the consumers and critics themselves. How negative, though, still remains the question. 

A screengrab from Sean Tatol’s “Kritic’s Korner”

Sean Tatol via his Instagram (Left); Ben Davis via Artnet article (Right)

Notes

1. Sean Tatol, “Negative Criticism” The Point Magazine, July 19, 2023, https://thepointmag.com/criticism/negative-criticism/.

2. Ben Davis, “Is Art Criticism Today Too Affirmative? That’s the Wrong Question to Be Asking: ‘Negative Reviews? Part 1’” Artnet, August 28, 2023, https://news.artnet.com/opinion/sean-tatol-negative-reviews-part-1-2353302.

3. Ben Davis, “The ‘Quasi-Theological’ Turn in Art Criticism Is a Mirage Leading Us the Wrong Way: ‘Negative Reviews? Part 2’” Artnet, August 30, 2023, https://news.artnet.com/opinion/sean-tatol-negative-criticism-part-2-2353305.

4. David Carrier and Laurie Fendrich, “On ‘negative criticism’” Two Coats of Paint, August 30, 2023, https://twocoatsofpaint.com/2023/08/on-negative-criticism.html.

Bibliography

David Carrier and Laurie Fendrich, “On ‘negative criticism’” Two Coats of Paint, August 30, 2023, https://twocoatsofpaint.com/2023/08/on-negative-criticism.html.

Ben Davis, “Is Art Criticism Today Too Affirmative? That’s the Wrong Question to Be Asking: ‘Negative Reviews? Part 1’” Artnet, August 28, 2023, https://news.artnet.com/opinion/sean-tatol-negative-reviews-part-1-2353302.

Ben Davis, “The ‘Quasi-Theological’ Turn in Art Criticism Is a Mirage Leading Us the Wrong Way: ‘Negative Reviews? Part 2’” Artnet, August 30, 2023, https://news.artnet.com/opinion/sean-tatol-negative-criticism-part-2-2353305.

Sean Tatol, “Negative Criticism” The Point Magazine, July 19, 2023, https://thepointmag.com/criticism/negative-criticism/.