Marek Bartelik “Art criticism is not a profession, it is something more like a call”
Arte al Límite
Santiago de Chile, Chile. January 2015
Marek Bartelik, AICA president.
Will be an essential part of the opening conversatory regarding Oswaldo Vigas at the MNBA. Marek Bartelik does not bring up the reasons that brought him to Chile, but instead, fathoms about the critic’s work, his role in today’s art world, and the status that has been acquired over the years.
Throughout yesterday’s morning, Marek Bartelik, president of the International Art Critics Association (AICA in spanish), held an interesting conversation with different Chilean artists at the Centro Cultural de Las Condes. The main goal of this interplay, moderated by Chilean art critic Ernesto Muñoz, was the pretentious intention to unfurl to Mr. Bartelik the actual art scene in Chile, and at the same time, to offer the possibility of a convincing judgment to the assisting artists’ artworks.
In fact, the main reason of his visit is something more relevant. Mr. Bartelik is the main guest in today’s opening of the exhibition “Oswaldo Vigas. Anthological (1943-2013)”, at the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes.
“I have been very much attracted to Vigas work”, explains Bartelik, “I also have been writing about him, more specifically about the period he spent in Europe as a “Latin American artist”, a period previous to his final return to Venezuela, his homeland, on the early 1960s”.
“It is curious how many Latin American artists have had to leave their native countries in order to achieve recognition in places like Europe or the United States of America. To have the chance to come and see this exhibition should give me the opportunity to be exposed to the works of contemporary Chilean artists, as well as to discover the local artistic scene, meet the different art critics and the local artists. I am only going to stay for five days, so from this moment on I am preparing myself to have a very busy agenda”.
Even though the critic has been criticized for decades and there is a rumor that the Academy is going to disappear, it is still surprising that this critic keeps lingering on strongly. What do you think is the reason?
It has been said for a long time that the critic is doomed to disappear someday. I strongly belief that there has been a strong desire for a lot of people to end the need for the presence of an “intermediary”, in order to talk about art. It makes much more sense to have a direct link of communication between the artists and the spectators, because this communication will give the spectator the possibility to judge the works for themselves. Unfortunately, contemporary art, on one side, has drifted apart increasingly from the daily experience (including the static experience) of the vast majority of the people, whereas that, on the other side, has become more and more an inexpensive form of entertainment. In fact, it is not a paradox that the actual instability of the political, economic and cultural international scenario is what keeps alive the heatedly debate regarding the future trend of the world and the art. This situation has exposed a huge gap in between what art in the artistic world and the rest of the world is thought to be, seems to be, or should be, even though both worlds can coincide with the idea that art is resembling more and more to an entertainment form.
In my opinion, art critics are as needed today as they have always been; the issue is that they must redefine their relation with contemporary art, including a reappraisal of their own sets of evaluative judgments, separated from the institutionalized criticism. But there is also another much more practical aspect of this alleged disappearance. The opening of possibilities for art criticism is decaying rapidly due to the shortening of available publishing spaces for the different art criticism articles in newspapers and magazines. If this trend keeps continuing, as it looks like it is going to happen, art criticism could cross the frontier into the academic and theoretical field, drifting apart from its original objective. It will also concern more and more into the immediate form of blogging, a situation that would focus art criticism into a totally opposite direction, towards the conventional and highly casual style of writing.
Which do you think is the critic’s function in society? What is his importance?
Obviously, from my perspective as an active art critic, we play a very important role in society, not only for being the “intermediary” between the artist and the spectator, but also, and perhaps the most important thing of all, as writers who influence in the creation of intelligent and passionate conversations regarding art. The art critic figure should be seen as a representative of the society in which he or she lives in, someone who is genuinely concerned with contemporary art and also feels the urge to talk about it.
Do art critics share common aspects, or can anybody with the necessary training be an art critic?
Being an art critic is not a profession, it is something more like a call. It is because of this that many poets throughout history like Charles Baudelaire, Rainer Maria Rilke or Octavio Paz were art critics. This “call” emerges when there is enough knowledge to discuss about art and life, and when the relevant writing skills have been fully developed. If a person becomes an art critic prematurely, he or she is at risk of becoming a journalist or a reporter, someone that has other writing skills. In fact, a lot of what we call today “art criticism” is just journalism, which in fact is also necessary, but should not replace the classic art criticism.
An art critic must have something that for other writers is not so important: a keen eye for art.
In comparison to fairs, exhibitions and government contests, how much does today’s artistic criticism contribute with the impulse of emerging artists and with the art of a country?
With the increase of fairs and biennials throughout the world, in addition to the culture in which the artists are involved –with the increasing value of curators that this brings along- art critics have less power to give an impulse to young artists careers, and even less, to lift up a mature artist’s career that has not been valued yet (it is very hard for art critics to rewrite history). I must say that I am not worried about this situation, because as I have stated previously, the art critic’s role is to stimulate an immediate and significant conversation about art; and when I mean significant, I refer to a conversation that is not clouded or darkened by art’s market conditions, and also does not have the support of someone’s career in particular as the main objective.
This is very important because the international art scene resembles a huge scenario, densely “populated” by artists that are in constant movement, but who unfortunately, have fewer possibilities to participate in the global communication. In fact, by participating in today’s art diffusion system, they could end up failing to defy the different situations that could damage their interests in the future. What really matters today for a small elite of “chosen” artists is to just “show up” at a biennial or at an art fair, setting aside the main issue that is: to exhibit their works. The artists’ works importance is based on the relations that these artists have with the museum, gallery, or fair stand where they are exhibiting, a situation that harms a lot of artists, and a phenomenon that the art critic must continue to expose.
Which countries are actually generating the best art critics? Have they been able to maximize the relation between the critic and the impulse to emerging artists and to the art of a country?
I have had the opportunity to travel around the world and let me tell you: The world is full of fantastic artists, but the issue is that in most of the countries I have been to, I hear the same comments: “We have a lot of talented artists, the problem is that the world doesn’t know anything about them”. I agree with those comments because all around the world good art is being produced, and I don’t think there are nations that produce more talents than others. Good art is not bounded to a nationality, even though there are some opinion makers that are trying to make us belief the contrary. I remember that on the late 1980s there was a discovery of the Russian contemporary art in the west hemisphere that fueled an interest that only lasted few years. We discussed about the “Saatchi Phenomenon”, about the magnificent South African photography that was appearing… the Brazilians have been leaving for quite a while their trademark in the international scene, then came the Polish, then the Koreans, then the Chinese. But let me tell you honestly that those opinions are not valid whatsoever, because their main objective is just to keep the spectator “enthusiastic”, entertained, excited about what is new, about what is actual, creating by these means an interest for the local market. The process of art making is not precisely a lucrative, exciting or glamorous activity, on the contrary, it requires a lot of hard work and a long term commitment (without any guarantee), it is more about individuality, individual communication and having something meaningful to say.