Quiet crisis of waning critical value judgements

I read an article last night from the publication, Art in America, “A Quiet Crisis” in which Raphael Rubenstein lays out some issues dealing with criticism in the art world. The main premise of the article is that art critics do not make value judgments anymore, leading to a surplus of bad art in galleries and museums, but also that artists do not have a quest for historical significance. Not having an interest in matching up with or getting in the ring with great artists of the past might be damaging to the modern understanding of art. Because of all the new technology we’re eager to implement and use, we prioritize novelty and speedy apprehension in art, especially now that the art world has risen to be a commercialized, capitalized, and institutionalized conglomerate of wealthy patrons and artist donatees. The “crisis” is that critics are unable to articulate their value judgments about art qualitatively but instead are tasked with educating the public about visual art and why it matters. Alternatively, the “value judgments” are made not in criticizing, but in deciding which works are worth talking about and analyzing.

I think that there is still an attempt to engage in discourse. Of course, it’s now a much smaller group of people who enjoys long format dialogue and reading dense material. Such group of people are difficult to find in the now erratic, compartmentalized, multitasking mind of a digital-age society. But I truly believe that they’re out there. Is it possible that today's art movements, (because of their resistance to the conformist norm) are not currently visible in the mainstream? Maybe it's now a small niche, obscured from participating in the limelight of following current trends of the market. The refusal to participate in the fetishization of an artsy way-of-life could be detrimental to forming any real art movements, because how else would artists gain recognition if they refuse to conform. 

Also, is it possible that today’s movement might be difficult to understand in the present moment but when we look back there could be connections in which artists were unaware of their participation? At one point during the past semester, a professor noticed that almost everyone in his class created a piece incorporating some version of “glitch” and said, “that’s Clarisse’s thing, you should all be the class of glitches”(I wasn’t even enrolled in the class). Of course, no one wants the dreaded derivative assumption or to just be considered someone’s copycat, but because there is no critical analysis or discourse, students are quick to accept their failure to be original/unique in their vision and concept (w/c is not true at all). Maybe the emphasis on being unique tempers with the idea of a forming movement. 

I feel that because there are no proper critics providing value judgments and keeping artists in check, it’s much harder now to decide what is considered good and bad art, to begin with. But also, providing real criticism takes real-time and energy. It’s extremely difficult with no concrete payoff. True art critics don’t get paid unless they’re participating in the wealth game. Either way, it is a dire issue that although difficult to address is important to talk about and to still try to do the most for the sake of creative excellence.