Martin and I are both art history majors, so I suppose we are biased to some degree. Will, who is a government major, is an avid lover of both art and architecture, but has never taken an art history class. Martin and I found ourselves arguing that, at least in the setting of a university newspaper, the writers of the art section should have some working background of art history, while Will was adamant that anyone with an appreciation for art should be able to contribute.
I felt that since art history majors are trained in the specific jargon and methodology for describing works of art, exhibits, and programs, they would better be able to compose articles relating to art. Will countered that the general readership of a university newspaper may not necessarily have the technical vocabulary inherent in art historical writing, and therefore might be lost in a newspaper article that is too full of foreign terms. I explained to him that there is obscure vocabulary used in many different types of newspaper articles, not only those relating to art. In addition, art history jargon, if properly explained in the context of the article, is something that will actually enhance the reader's understanding - in other words, using "art history words" like chiaroscuro or perspective gives the reader an opportunity to expand his or her own vocabulary.
Will also argued that non-art history majors may have an appreciation and working knowledge of art, even though it is not their focus of study at the time. But I continue to wonder: does having an interest in art qualify you to be able to write about it? I don't know how much credibility a music major might have writing about politics. The world of politics has its own set of vocabulary which is understood by a select group of people. So I guess if a music major (or any other major for that matter) had a working knowledge of the way to describe political events, he or she should not be deprived of doing so. But still, something about this is gnawing at me - perhaps it's just my need to validate myself as an art history major in a community where art is not always the focus. Or perhaps it's something else.
In the world outside the university setting, those who write about art in reputable publications generally have a background in some area of the art world. Roberta Smith of the New York Times, for example, is an art critic and lecturer who has worked in numerous museums. It is rare for a newspaper like the New York Times to include art articles written by authors who are not professionals in the field (unless the purpose of the story is to get a certain person's perspective on art, etc.). But does a university newspaper necessarily need to conform to the standards of a publication such as the Times? Food for thought.
NB: Regardless of who is writing for the university newspaper's art section, the articles should be of high quality. There is no excuse for bad writing, no matter what the subject.
*Names have been changed.
My son works on his college paper and the sense I get is that editors dole out assignments to willing writers according to the paper's need. It's in the interest of the paper's circulation to have coverage for events, especially if there are competing papers on campus. They likely care less if the arts are covered by a math major, or if an art history major covers a political rally. Still, the bigger point you elicit begs the question of training one's eye and teaching others to see. I recently learned that Peter Schjeldahl, head art critic of the New Yorker, began his journalistic life covering sports. As a museum professional, I frequently find art journalism displays a shocking lack of knowledge about the way museums actually work. On the other hand, perhaps most readers could care less about the background behind an exhibition. They want to know what's good and why and if they should get off their couch to see a particular exhibition. Art journalists seem to shape their own path, studying abroad, writing about art, and finding an outfit to hire them. We might wonder if we will eventually read any art journalism in a major paper, as Tyler Green (Modern Art Notes) writes: "There’s been a continuing decline in journalism that is art inclusive at traditional commercial multitopic — if you will — journalism outlets. Obviously the advertising slump and layoffs [that came out of the recession] resulted in that decline … places are pretty much cut to the bone and cut what they could cut. It isn’t like the New York Times is going to lay-off Roberta [Smith] or a Pulitzer Prize-winning critic or the LA Times is going to get rid of Christopher Knight. We’re pretty much down to the number of traditional outlets that include art and the arts in their coverage, it’s down to about how low it’s going to get. Papers like the Washington Post or the Fort Worth Star-Telegram have eliminated their weekend arts section all together … there still isn’t a full-time arts reporter at a traditional commercial publication in Illinois, in the whole state, and there’s only one in the state of Texas. I don’t see any sign of any of that coming back." Sad but very true. As in the public school curricula, the arts are among the first areas to be eliminated from the dailies, which is why blogs have become major sources for art journalism. I agree--there's no excuse for bad writing no matter the journalist's background or the subject!
ReplyDelete