Jerry Saltz’s “An Open Letter to (starving, idle, hungry, ambitous, etc.) Art-Critics about Starting their own on-line Art Magazines”
New York magazine art critic Jerry Saltz wrote a fantastically ranting letter to one of his readers and commentators on his Facebook page addressing blogs, online and anonymous criticism and the general lack of funds in the world of art magazines in a post titled “An Open Letter to (starving, idle, hungry, ambitous, etc.) Art-Critics about Starting their own on-line Art Magazines.”
Along with advising that young art critics start their own edited online magazine, some of my favourite pieces of Saltz’s advice is to write and critique with one’s name attached rather than anonymously. As Saltz writes:
“Blogs are often (NOT ALWAYS!!!!!! for God’s SAKE!) written anonymously. OR: The comments are ANONYMOUS. (To me this is where things sometimes turn dark.) I am NOT against people writing anonymously. I will say it again: I am not against people writing anonymously. Okay? Some things get said when they are said anonymously. Fine. For me, however, real credibility comes PARTLY from being vulnerable, using YOUR OWN NAME; I have called this Radical Vulnerability.”
I like this notion of “radical vulnerability” even though it is, of course, often uncomfortable to carry out since it carries with it a measure of being vulnerable: feeling open to misinterpretation, misunderstandings or even attacks in response. But I also think the role of editing art criticism is an important one and that it might make sense for several writers/bloggers to band together and publish an edited, online magazine. Something like what nomorepotlucks is doing, but with art writing. The only problem is, how do you find the time?
via Amy Fung and the Toronto Alliance for Art Critics Facebook group page
I find it interesting that Saltz desires the radical vulnerability of refusing anonymity, while also acknowledging that there is a severe imbalance of power in the art world when it comes to women. Has he considered that anonymity might be a way to empower women when it comes to art criticism within the art world?
The logic makes sense somewhat (to me) but feel free to differ as I'm just cobbling together two possibly disparate positions of his.
I think that's actually an interesting link between Saltz's two most frequent complaints/assertions about the art world. It does seem especially hard to have "radical vulnerability" as a woman working in the art world when it often seems that we are already in a vulnerable position: from tangible things like job security, unequal pay, lack of maternity leave, etc., as well as in more intangible, immaterial ways.