Make your voice heard--what kind of arts coverage serves audiences and artists best?

[Susannah Schouweiler]

Hi everyone,

Here at mnartists.org HQ, as we busily plan for the new year and reflect on the changing arts and media landscapes, we find ourselves wondering: what kind of arts coverage best serves the needs of both artists and audiences? In fact, it's such an important question, we think it's time to start a community-wide dialogue on the topic. So, over the coming weeks we're asking critics, editors, and arts journalists to weigh in on the state of arts writing and how they're adapting to changes in media, financial support, and dwindling readership; we're approaching artists working in a number of disciplines to give their thoughts on the kind of coverage that most fruitfully and responsibly serves the creative communities who work in the arts.

And, finally, we're coming to you, the artists and arts lovers who comprise the best, most engaged audience for this kind of coverage. Wade into the fray and give us your two cents about this topic. What's the direction you think those publishing arts writing, criticism, and general arts journalism should head as they face all these changes in media and new methods of "content delivery?"

So: All of you who buy tickets to see shows or who watch films, those of you who attend gallery openings and save up for that special piece of original art, and all of you who read books or go out to lend an ear to local music, tell us: What kind of arts coverage serves you best?

Here are some specific questions to wrangle with:

• In what kind of media and/or format do you like to hear about the arts? Do you prefer more traditional forms of arts journalism, like the kind of critical reviews and reportage you'd find in print, in newspapers and magazines? Or, have you migrated online for your arts news?
  
• On a related note: If you're going online for your arts coverage, do you prefer to read it (in online articles), listen to it (in podcast form), or watch it (in vlogs, for example)?
  
• How do you feel about arts criticism and reviews? Do you pay attention to this sort of arts writing?
  
• Do critical reviews and essays on work in the arts engage you in a broader discourse on an artist's (or a performer's, or an author's) work or do you find it irrelevent to your needs and interests?
  
• On a related note: if you find arts criticism valuable, *whose* criticism do you pay attention to? With the ranks of citizen journalists, bloggers, DIY/self-published arts writers and critics swelling, do you find professional editorial and critical voices more, or less, relevant to you?
  
• If you take in arts coverage of any kind (whether online or in print, whether you read it, listen to it, or watch it)--how do you *use* that information? Is the arts journalism and criticism you partake of something to plan your weekend itinerary by?
  
• Would you rather read a "preview" of an arts happening that incorporates the voices of the participating artists (in the form of a profile or interview, maybe); or would you find a critical review of that event, as penned by a writer or critic who is well-versed in the larger context, to be more satisfying or useful?
  
• Or, do you go to arts coverage for a narrative, a story that will give you some human information about an artist and his/her work?
  
• Do you feel wistful and angry that outlets and readership for traditional arts criticism produced by professional editors and critics appears to be dwinding? Or, do you find the loss to be offset by increase in other kinds of coverage?
  
• In your opinion, what's the root cause of the diminishing readership and financial support for arts writing and criticism?
  
• And finally, a related question: what needs to change to ensure a robust future for coverage of the arts, in whatever form it takes?

I will collect a variety of the most thoughtful, provocative, and salient viewpoints to emerge from this dialogue into a series of articles which will be published in mnartists.org's online arts magazine, MnArts, throughout the month of January. If there's enough response from you, we'll begin assembling your remarks for a round-up article as early as next week.

Please note that this conversation will be an open one, without the requirement of forum registration to participate. At the same time, we will also be strictly moderating this dialogue to insure that it remains a welcoming place for everyone to share their comments and observations candidly. In the interest of creating an inviting, engaging environment for an inclusive, accessible discussion, we expect that you will keep your remarks on-topic, respectful and always civil--even (and especially) when you find yourselves in heated disagreement. If you stray too much from either the topic or commonsense guidelines for civil discourse (no name calling, no personal attacks, no conversation-monopolizing grudge matches, please), your remarks will be removed.

I'm eager to read your responses! Please spread the word about this dialogue--the conversation is only as rich as you make it! Thank you in advance for your lively, thoughtful observations and comments.

All my best,

Susannah

Are you really willing to hear real criticism?


jrl

[Susannah Schouweiler]

Hi Mr. Longoria and everyone,

Yes, of course, I'm open to constructive criticism. But I hope we can take the conversation beyond my own (admittedly plentiful) flaws as an editor . And I also hope we can broaden the discussion to include all kinds of arts coverage in the state--more than simply what you'll find here on mnartists.org. (Though, of course, I'm selfishly interested in your feedback on what we're offering readers, too.) I'm aware that many of us working in the field of arts writing and criticism likely bear some responsibility for the dwindling readership--we can certainly work harder to adapt to changing media, quickly evolving art forms, and to make sure our coverage encompasses some of the richness and breadth of the variety of artists working in Minnesota. So--hit me with it. But please, everyone, keep your comments and criticisms on topic and collegial.

S

[mplsart]

Here are some current thoughts...sorry so essay-ish and I'm sure full of grammar issues.

Our arts community needs both strong arts coverage in the form or “previews” and critical writings, especially at the gallery level.

Previews are necessary to raise awareness of the arts community to a larger community, helping to expand the number of actual people actively participating in the arts within Minnesota. Previews can be seen as an open invitation.

Critical writings are a fundamental ingredient of any arts community. Without the critical voice, whether you agree with the critic or not, we as an arts community are not held accountable for our creations. It is necessary for the artist, gallery director, curator, etc. to receive feedback. It provides them the tools required for reflection of the end results. It is constructive criticism that can then be applied to future work/projects, helping to further refine their skill. Critical writing, when the coverage is broad and frequent enough, plays a crucial role in the shaping of an arts community.

In the current state of affairs, the lack of art criticism has helped to create a plateau in our arts environment. We need the critic to provide the mirror necessary to see our own opportunities for betterment.

Please respond!
Emma

I couldn't agree more with Emma's post. Of course, I'm a critic, so my opinion may be completely biased--but I do believe critical writing is necessary for all the arts here in Minnesota. I'll add an additional reason to Emma's excellent argument, one which may at first seem trivial: artists need the words of critics. Not all reviews are positive, but those that are act as votes in the artist's favor. They are validation from outside. Previews, which are heavily dependent on the artist's own voice, cannot do that.

Hello, this is Mathew Janczewski of ARENA Dances, a modern dance company based in the Twin Cities since 1994. It is extremely crucial to have dance previews and reviews of dance performances- it is the best way to inform people of the work and the reviews are essential to aid the arts organizations in seeking funding, presenters attention nationally and internationally and really speak to the world as to what arts are happening in Minnesota. Please continue to do the great job of covering the arts.

Sincerely-

Mathew Janczewski
Executive Artistic Director,
ARENA Dances, Inc.

I also agree with emma, it is hard to move a art community forward when it does not recieve feedback or interact with the world around it.

Since I began writing about the art scene in earnest about a year ago, the feedback from the community of art-makers—and by this I mean the artists themselves, as well as gallery directors and curators—pretty much boils down to one sentiment: “what you’re doing is appreciated, but we need more, more, MORE!” More descriptive previews, more show listings, more profiles, and—for God’s sake—more criticism. Just yesterday, I got an e-mail from a respected artist friend urging me to talk to one of my editor’s about the dwindling coverage in our publication.

I'll be the first to admit that there are gaping holes in the scope of current arts journalism, especially in the realm of the visual arts. Unfortunately, it’s more the rule than the exception that dozens of deserving shows come and go without any formal recognition of the press. And it’s not just the two publications I work for. Gallery shows are taking a back seat to music articles and restaurant reviews in almost every publication in the Twin Cities. It’s a shame, for sure.

But until one of these publications finds the money to hire a staff arts writer—or even someone part-time guaranteed a certain salary every month—the coverage will remain sparse at best. Every arts writer I know, whether journalist or critic, works freelance, including many of the bigger names around town. Which means we…I should speak for myself…I can only devote a fraction of my attention to the myriad press releases that flood my in-box every month, as I work a full time day job and hustle other writing gigs to get by. As a result, there are scores of interesting projects that I don’t have the time or energy to explore. Quantity of coverage suffers, and folks get left out.

But quality suffers, too. Freelancers live and die by their speed of production. And when articles are hastily prepared in a piecemeal fashion during free hours during the week, the insight is bound to suffer. While I wouldn’t accuse anyone—including myself—of producing insipid material, I would guess that we could all delve a bit deeper if afforded more time.

So, I hate to sound like a broke and bitter writer, but money and time are issues we can’t ignore. We either need a slew of more freelancers, so that each writer can focus on fewer projects in depth. Or we need to find a way to get qualified arts people on staff, so that they can focus their talents.

I know the NEMAA newsletter recently proposed a petition/letter writing campaign that would demand more coverage from the big papers in town. But I fear the newspapers have their hands tied with budget constraints and couldn’t hire someone even if they wanted to. So what do we do? New media? Blogs? Grant funding for critics?

g. scott

[Susannah Schouweiler]

Emma, Lightsey, Matthew--you all make persuasive points about the intrinsic value of good arts writing for working artists and for the overall vitality of the arts community. Gregory's points about the general dearth of financial support for arts journalists and critics and the similarly weak commitment from publications/media outlets for in-depth coverage of the arts seem spot on to me as well. We've all seen review pages for every creative discipline shrink--in newspapers and magazines alike. But it didn't happen in a vacuum. Sponsors and readers, in large part, stopped supporting that critical arts content--the ad dollars disappeared with readers' attention, I fear. Publishing's a tough business, and small magazines and media outlets especially have tiny profit margins even in good times. They have to keep the lights on somehow--maybe they just couldn't afford to devote staff time and money to a persistent loss leader?

So my question is this: Why did the smart-but-general reader's enthusiasm for arts writing wane? Is that readership simply uninterested in the arts(an idea I steadfastly resist), or has the arts audience merely migrated to niche media outlets and interest-specific blogs online? Is this a marketing problem? An editorial problem? An old media/new media problem? And maybe most importantly, what do you think writers, editors, and publishers can do to reinvigorate our arts coverage to woo new eyes and ears (and with them, perhaps, more reliable financial support for arts publications and critics) to our reviews and arts writing?

Yes, I've heard this scenario many times in the local art scene. The critic must be the superhero of the art world. Not only must she convince editors at major publications (the ones that people may actually still read) to take a look at her writing and perhaps publish it, but she must make sure the writing is so scintillating and so stellar that it actually convinces people who care squat about art to change their minds. It is solely the critic's responsibility to save the art world. And the critic must do so while making sure that the boats of all local artists and galleries and museums and curators and on and on are equally raised by the fabulous words she writes.

I just don't see how this scenario falls apart, do you? There's gotta be at least coupla dozen people in town willing to take on this superhuman task for artists....