Roberta Smith critiques art critics

It is a special treat to sit in on another professional's important event, and enjoy the experience. It was the annual lecture of the International Association of Art Critics, held in the lecture theatre at Tate Britain. The speaker was Roberta Smith, a weekly columnist in the New York Times. Although her published title was Art Criticism: Personal and Political, she explained several other variants of what she intended to talk about. And it was very much like a chat with good friends; interspersed with some pithy and powerful insights. She also spent a long time inviting and responding to questions; often from very important local critics who wanted to grandstand their own views and opinions. What I enjoyed most was her fresh and honest approach to art criticism; for her, the key was to interest people long enough that they wanted to go and see the exhibition she was commenting on! She seemed critical about whether artists really know and own the meaning of their work. Many cannot explain or document the process of creation. So she aims to describe what she sees, and she focuses on describing what she calls content; the sublingual power of art to please, created by the artist's process of making and their sensibility. I tended to agree with her that art should not require a lot of interpretation, but I also recognise that we get to know some artists better than others. I liked the way she avoids taking particular stances and writing to agendas, as she said they represent a narrow vision that is boring and predictable. I also agree with her goal to describe what she sees, and decipher the artist's content to explain why the particular piece is interesting. In my case, I can only explain art exhibitions in relation to my experience and knowledge of the artist or their content. For her, it seems her comments responate more broadly with contemporary American society and with her experience in understanding and contrasting many different forms of art.