Oh, horrors, you mean the critics might actually wish to see the exhibition or have thought about it before appearing on a panel to discuss it? I know I have a certain self-interest here, but it was chastening nonetheless, and I'll be boastful and say it is part of what motivated me to get started in the first place as a writer.
One could easily put it down, too, to the particulars. A biennial is often a chore for anyone. The Sun is a conservative paper, which perhaps explains why its critic prefers estimably restrained modernism, which an eye to some very fine shows at Elizabeth Harris. R. C. Baker is a superb gusher, which has its limits, too. And so on.
But I do hope we can keep demanding more. NAD has really made itself a more valuable institution in just a few years, and the series is evidence. Still, a panel I saw, the only critic who pushed himself hard was Arthur Danto, who of course made his mark in a different and particularly demanding discipline.
One could easily put it down, too, to the particulars. A biennial is often a chore for anyone. The Sun is a conservative paper, which perhaps explains why its critic prefers estimably restrained modernism, which an eye to some very fine shows at Elizabeth Harris. R. C. Baker is a superb gusher, which has its limits, too. And so on.
But I do hope we can keep demanding more. NAD has really made itself a more valuable institution in just a few years, and the series is evidence. Still, a panel I saw, the only critic who pushed himself hard was Arthur Danto, who of course made his mark in a different and particularly demanding discipline.