Art criticism in times of Facebook and Blendle. (A survival guide.)

In a discussion (on facebook, where else) about NRC Handelsblad's departure from Blendle, an editor of that newspaper made very disparaging remarks about a reader who had paid 30 cents for one of his articles. In a recent article on Frankwatching an expert concluded that investigative journalism could only survive if we started subsidising newspapers.

Last week, an article appeared in The New Yorker in which that magazine's music critic lamented the end of his profession. Under the telling title 'THE FATE OF THE CRITIC IN THE CLICKBAIT AGE' Alex Ross observed that more and more art institutions were functioning in an uncritical universe.

Gaap

I could not suppress a loud yawn. Ross was lamenting a phenomenon that was everywhere over eight years ago, and has been discussed in countless places.

Incidentally, it was also the reason at the time for the creation of Culture Press and, two years later, a specialist medium like 'Theatre newspaper.co.uk'. Meanwhile, there are countless websites and facebook pages worldwide where art is discussed, and not only by people with an opera or musical blog mainly out for free tickets in exchange for a 'critical' article on their website.

A surplus of bad critics

So the analysis is wrong. Alex Ross describes the decline of 'art criticism' in paper media, without taking seriously the rise of art debate in digital media. Indeed, there is no shortage of critics. At best, there is a surplus of bad critics.

Of course: worldwide, but certainly in the capitalist, neoliberally organised world, the arts are under pressure. The space for art appreciation in paper media, or linear media like television, has also declined. But the reach of those media themselves has declined especially rapidly. Circulations have plummeted dramatically, ratings historically low. So low, in fact, that Coca Cola announced just this week that it would stop advertising in the 'old' media altogether, to focus entirely on 'online'. Think: Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Youtube.

In this way, the last financial base under the long-established revenue model of newspapers, magazines and television is falling away. But most were switching to a model that does more justice to their strengths anyway: readers. Dutch newspapers are already seventy per cent funded by subscriptions and newsstand sales. So it is high time that these media start paying more attention to whom they serve, and less attention to those few advertisers that are left.

The comeback of arts journalism

That art criticism does still play a role in that reorientation is proven by Dutch newspapers like NRC, Volkskrant and Trouw. After a deep slump between 2010 and 2014, during which space for art was minimised in the columns and in the staff, art appreciation has returned, along with the harder forms of art journalism: investigating policy and technical developments.

But art criticism remains an expensive and therefore vulnerable form of journalism: a reviewer has to go out for a piece all the time. So he spends a lot of time, which does not sit well with a salaried contract, where production per hour has to be high. So most reviewers in the Netherlands these days are freelancers. The income from that work is also so low that independence is in question even among newspaper reviewers. There are few people who call themselves critics any more who do not also work as public relations officers, dramatists or annual report writers. How else can you finance your favourite work?

Reviews are not popular

Add to that: reviews are not a popular subject with readers. So it makes sense for newspaper editors to curtail their editorial space for such pieces. Paper is expensive. That surviving on loose blendle sales for a reviewer is also little obvious, is no surprise. Even though we with Culture Press have yet to get the figures for our first quarter in, visit figures show that the number of people who linger longer than 15 seconds at a review is very small. Much smaller than the group of people who read background and news coverage. That can add up to a factor of 10 for very topical issues.

With all the doom and gloom, I have also learnt something in recent years: criticism as we know it, the three-hundred- to six-hundred-word newspaper piece discussing and assessing as many aspects of the artwork as possible, is a typical newspaper thingy. With that, I also claim that such pieces are as doomed as the newspaper that refuses to renew.

Indeed, art critics have been shouting for just under half a century that artists should not come up with the same thing over and over again, that they should innovate their craft, that they should surprise them. Meanwhile, those art critics have been writing that down the same way for more than 40 years. In short: art innovates itself a misery, while the critic has been commenting unchanged from the sidelines for years.

With their rigidity, these art critics also further hinder the progress of the sector. The more authoritative, the more dangerous to that progress, even.

Renewal is a necessity

Renewing is hard. Dog-eat-dog difficult even. I have been trying to force myself into new forms for years. Sometimes those experiments succeed, sometimes they don't. Meanwhile, I plead (also with my colleagues) for pieces that look beyond that one work of art to be discussed. I long for pieces that dig deeper, that engage the reader's world with that one work of art. More essay, less fill-in-the-blank. And above all, less fear of the judgement of the art world.

For the critic, there is no greater danger than wanting to be taken seriously by the people about whom he has to write. If it happens, it may be included, but it should never be a goal. Let art historians and curators indulge in Lacan and Derrida.

Survival is possible

So now the question remains: can you live off that? I claim here that you can. If there is 1 thing that our experiment with loose sales through blendle has yielded, it is that effort you put into something often comes back out of it. In the form of more sales to readers. Convenience does not sell, a reader sees through that immediately. Traditional and dutiful writing doesn't work either. As a journalist, you have to invest heavily if you want to survive in a world where you make money per article and per reader.

A single newspaper contains hundreds of articles that may have taken more or less time. It only needs one article that convinces you, the reader, to put down that few euros for that purchase. For an arts journalist who wants to survive without a newspaper, every piece he writes has to be that reason. In practice, it makes little difference whether a story on Blendle costs five cents or one euro. Buying is an action and the reader takes that decision to act every time.

The journalist of 2017 and beyond is no longer a cog in a larger whole. A journalist who wants to matter will have to prove that with every article. A journalist who cannot look at his profession in a new way is losing his chances of survival.