Echo Chamber
The Death of Criticism
“Every day grows more amnesiac about its recent past.” — Hilton Kramer
The worlds of architecture and design are responsible for making the world a more attractive place to be, as well as better planned, more efficient and, factors of ever increasing importance, future proof and environmentally friendly; they are, however, also responsible for producing an awful lot of rubbish. Very rarely however does anyone actually say it. There are of course, specifically, “architecture critics” — some are, occasionally, honest, however most simply omit any mention of those truly heinous offenders, choosing instead only to praise those meeting a tick box list of trendy editorial criteria, or “Starchitects” whose every sketch and scribble tends to be hailed as a work of genius. Interiors criticism however simply doesn’t exist. It’s unclear why exactly that is — but suggests, somewhat inexplicably, much like the division between art and craft, that the profession simply isn’t taken as seriously. This has of course been the case since the role of interior designer, or rather, ensemblier, first came about (in the way its currently understood) in the early twentieth century, with Le Corbusier (1887-1965) famously referring to the design of furniture and fittings as “le blah blah blah” (and not le bof bof bof, at least according to Perriand). As a result, historical awareness of the profession fades further and further with every new magazine, and often, every new editor. As in the art world, criticism with a real viewpoint, that seeks to explain and persuade, is almost non-existent; and as a result, many designers live in an echo chamber, being told ad infinitum by a receptive press, desperate for editorial content, that any new piece they produce — anything from a pepper mill to an entire furniture line — is destined to go down in the annals of design history as a true work of unsurpassed genius. There have of course in recent years been a myriad of articles, conferences and publications devoted to the crisis in criticism, or what art historian Benjamin Buchloh (b. 1941) has somewhat definitively called the “death of art criticism”, for e.g. The State of Art Criticism (eds. James Elkins and Michael Newman, 2008) and Judgment and Contemporary Art Criticism (eds. J. Khonsary and M. O’Brian, 2010). Interestingly, ideas of “crisis” and “criticism” have always been closely linked, with Belgian literary critic Paul de Man (1919-1983) arguing in 1964 that “in periods that are not periods of crisis, or in individuals bent on avoiding crisis at all cost, there can be all kinds of approaches to literature: historical, philological, psychological, etc., but there can be no criticism”. If de Man is right, and crisis is a constant element of criticism, and one also accepts Buchloh’s proposition, then there has, implicitly, been an abandonment of the problems posed by crisis. Ergo, in a world hit by crisis after crisis, criticism is, of course, crucial, and importantly, in a society keen to address the evils of “bullying”, it’s important that we make a distinction. Perhaps a good place to start would be with French poet Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867) who in his pithily titled Art in Paris 1845-1862: Salons and Other Exhibitions (Arts and Letters), suggested the ideal critic be “partiale, passionnée, politique”.
A gold bracelet set with a pair of 17th century gold menuki (samurai sword ornaments), featuring tigers, by Japanese goldsmith Teiji Goto (1603-1673), by Maison Auclert, Paris
A miniature portrait of Henri de Lorraine, Duc de Guise (1550–1588), Circle of Antonio Abondio (Riva del Garda, 1538 ‑ Vienna, 1591) (c. 1566) available at Galerie Kugel, Paris
Of course, one reason for the lack of art criticism is newspapers and magazines, is that people simply don’t read it; the majority of such writing, traditionally speaking, is so dense, so impenetrable, that on the whole, nobody but those in the industry can bothered to pick it apart, and for that matter, why should they? The information age has, after all, changed the collective global attention span due to the amount of information people are bombarded with on a day to day basis; indeed a recent study by the scientific journal Nature Communications shows that as a result of this unrelenting media saturation, people will often only focus on things for very short periods of time. In a press release from the Technical University of Denmark, Professor Sune Lehmann, who worked on the study, said: “It seems that the allocated attention time in our collective minds has a certain size but the cultural items competing for that attention have become more densely packed.” Essentially, and in part, due to social media (platforms like Instagram and Twitter), we’re seeing more and more “content”, which exhausts our attention, leaving us unable to process vast tracts of information. Yet, at the same time, our insatiable urge for “newness” causes us to collectively switch between topics, mediums, platforms etc. on a more regular basis. As a consequence, in large part, electronic media (though print is increasingly guilty) is putting out more and more material so as to win over readership, and, therefore, we’re somewhat trapped in a vicious cycle, akin to a snake eating its tail. Mainstream magazines are increasingly unwilling to publish well researched, meaningful articles for fear of alienating its readership, and en masse very few actually read criticism from the likes of for e.g. Art Forum (other than articles by Jerry Saltz who seems to have something of a monopoly on young audiences, especially students on MFA programs, who seem to read little else) and so historical and technical knowledge of art and design is dwindling — with a myriad of negative results, first and foremost, the proliferation of fakes and forgeries by those with no respect for, or real knowledge of, especially, the work of twentieth century masters — an aesthetic currently, globally speaking, “En Vogue”.
Fragment of a finger, Roman, 1st century at the home of Adrien Chenel, demonstrative of the galleries unique and individual approach to staging and design
If nothing changes, issues surrounding “crisis” could be reduced to a bullet point list of key issues, with no real depth of discussion; providing the bare minimum before moving onto the next discussion topic, which will, inevitably, hurt the quality and accuracy of the information available on any given topic. Clearly, if one thinks of criticism in the traditional sense, in terms of print media, its popularity is in terminal decline — which is of course why most newspapers have fired their art critics and art magazines face ever diminishing circulation numbers. In terms of interiors and architecture, these too are being dumbed down for an audience that increasingly favours bite-size, rapid-fire puff pieces. AD France was a publication that in terms of content, both with regards to product placement and interior photo shoots, refused to give in to cyclical trends and celebrity culture; instead focusing on the homes of designers, dealers, collectors and iconic works of architecture, for e.g. Gio Ponti’s (1871-1979) Villa L’Ange Volant, a neo-classical Italian haven on the outskirts of Paris (photographed by Aurélien Chauvaud for the December 2020 issue). For some time rumors have been circulating that head honchos at Condé Nast have been unhappy Editor in Chief Marie Kalt refused to give into the sort of Kardashian-centric shoots seen in its other publications; whether or not there’s any truth in it, last week it was announced by magazine staff that the Paris office would be closed and operations moved to Munich.
This is particularly sad as the French have something of a unique attitude to design, both aesthetically and philosophically speaking, and that is, quite simply: a belief in individual taste. Speaking recently to a number of Paris based gallerists, designers and perfumers, including, amongst others, Laura Kugel (of Galerie Kugel), Ollivier, Adrien and Gladys Chenel (of Galerie Chenel), Marc-Antoine Barrois, Marc Auclert (of Maison Auclert) and Olivier Echaudemaison, I heard one thing again and again — that they design, buy and create based not on market forces, but their own unique, individual taste, and that they are confident that if they aim only for the best, there will always be a market, regardless of the fripperies of fads and fashions. This is precisely what makes French design so interesting, as an entity both the design world and its market are interested in the story behind an object or interior, the designers philosophy and background, who they choose as manufacturers, what makes it unique, and in turn, this drives original, forward thinking design, independent of shallow, short-term marketing strategies. This should, essentially, be the template for how the design world functions and operates; eschewing the ubiquitous and mundane, and instead championing original talent.
Goat, Roman, 1st century AD, Marble, from a former European collection, available at Galerie Chenel, Paris
Clearly criticism in the traditional sense is no longer relevant, i.e. vast near impenetrable articles, consisting of overly complex, verbose language that even those with a genuine interest (and a degree in art history) often have trouble deciphering. Again, it’s critical that we foster a nuanced outlook, and again, by doing so, we must not conflate “bullying” and “criticism”, which are, inherently, two very different bedfellows. A good many of those who try to speak out about bad design, for e.g. the banal, insensitive, disjointed “twist of tinfoil” that is Frank Gehry’s Luma Arles (as well as, for that matter, his “Battersea-on-sea” Power Station development “Prospect Place” — though presumably the prospect isn’t affordable living — which might be more at home on the Costa Brava), are jumped on by a sycophantic audience desperate to preserve a cookie cutter status quo. This is equally the case, if not more so, within the interior design world; indeed the poster behind anonymous Instagram account @DesignWithinCopy frequently has allegations of bullying thrown at them for daring to call out, on the one hand, those designers who lazily rehash the work of twentieth century greats, and on the other, those that produce shameless copies of contemporary furnishings.
Of course the design world is as fractured and niche-ridden as the art world, and, for that matter, the rest of culture — and quite simply, not everyone reads the same newspaper, magazine, blog etc in the same way not everyone watches the same TV show. As a result critics, or rather, those prepared to critique, simply don’t wield the same power as for e.g. Thomas McEvilley, whose 1984 Artforum article Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief (which opened a debate on the exhibition Primitivism’ in 20th Century Art at New York’s Museum of Modern Art) helped lay the foundation for a globalized art world, or Linda Nochlin’s seminal Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists in ARTnews in 1971. As a student of design the “crit” is an essential part of the process, where one defends a body of work in front of tutors, visiting critics and classmates; this instant, public feedback is immeasurably valuable in the sense that it helps a one become less insular, to develop as a designer, both technically and aesthetically speaking, and to acknowledge and learn from mistakes. Excluding actors, designers and architects, arguably, like to pat themselves on the back and celebrate their own achievements more than any other profession, with an endless stream of award ceremonies, dinners and openings — a little honest criticism would go some way to bursting the bubble and bringing certain individuals back down to earth with a bang.