Arts Professional Story: James Yood, Contemporary Art Critic and Essayist

James Yood

An interview with CAR associate Tom Burtonwood

How do artists or galleries get on my radar.

How should artists or galleries get on your radar?

It's easy here; there are only about 10 or 15 working art critics in Chicago, and in about twenty minutes on the web or with a phone book you can get addresses and e-mail info on just about all of them. Contact them (not by phone, though, that's never a good idea!) with your info when an exhibition is forthcoming, a few weeks in advance of the event is preferable. And don't take the tone that "I'm having a show next month and I want you to see it and review it, and if you don't see it or review it I will assume you are a jerk, as I deserve to have you write about me right now."

Try, instead, "Greetings, I'm an artist having this show and it would be great if you could see it. I'm here for the long haul, and look forward to interacting with you at some point." And little things mean a lot; if you send me information it doesn't help you if my name is spelled incorrectly, if there are typos in the press release, if it comes postage due, etc. If we are arts professionals we should behave as such. Here's a hard truth: I get 20 or 30 pieces of art-related mail, electronic or snail, every day, and it's tempting for me to toss aside those that are clumsiest and most immature, as that can sometimes be an indication of the art they promote. Of course, the easiest way to get on the radar of the art community is to do excellent work; great talent really never gets overlooked in the long run.

What is the role of an art critic in Chicago? Or how do you see your role as an art critic in Chicago?

This is a great question. Of course, at its core, it's the same as functioning as an art critic anywhere: to look and think as hard as possible. A good textbook definition of criticism is that it is expert opinion printed in an independent venue. The critic should describe, interpret and evaluate, and try to give the artist a verbal voice. Chicago critics also have, I would argue, a special responsibility to address the work done by Chicago artists. Not to the exclusion of all else, it's good to remind the rest of the world that major artists from everywhere show their work here. But if our local critics don't write about Chicago artists, who will? This is a great center for contemporary art and artists, and our critics are in an interesting position to inform the rest of the world about it and them.

How should artists get on the radar of local, national, international publications?

Another great question! Every few months an editor from some national or international publication contacts me and says something like "I see so-and-so is having an exhibition in Chicago next month, would you be interested in reviewing it?" I don't know how they came to hear of it, it's not something I proposed, etc. You can easily find the websites of local, national, and international publications, or check their mastheads in print. Who's the reviews editor? Put him or her on your mailing list, sometimes an image on a postcard is enough to catch someone's eye.

What are the pros/cons of print media, web-based media, for criticism?

The great advantage of print media is that it is almost always edited, and usually permanent. It becomes part of the public record, the paper trail that is a component in an artist's career. It's usually produced by a neutral third party, a magazine or a newspaper that is not an advocate of anything but good writing and thinking. The disadvantage of print media is that, with the exception of newspapers and some weeklies, the review comes out after the exhibition has closed. Rather, then, than starting a conversation with an audience, magazine criticism particularly often has the tone of judgment passed on a done deal. Web-based criticism is lively and more immediate, though it is often not edited or subject to much supervision, leaving the reader unsure how independent it is, and the writing can be amateurish. We've seen in Chicago in recent years how websites dedicated to art criticism and discussion open with a lot of energy and then usually fizzle out, or get dominated by a few people addicted to their "send" button. Some sites have disappeared completely, with no permanent accessible archive, lost in hyperspace somewhere.

How did you get started writing art criticism?

I studied art history and began teaching college; at a faculty Xmas party (the only one I ever went to!) a colleague's husband said that he was involved with the New Art Examiner, and that I should have lunch with the editor, Alice Thorson. I did, she asked me to write a review, I did, she asked me to write another, I did, she asked for two more, and a few months later hired me as a part-time Assistant Editor. I stayed there a few more years, became Editor, and my writing there opened the doors to Artforum, Aperture, etc.

What is the aspect of being a critic that is most misunderstood?

The biggest misperception is that I decide on my own what to write about every month. That never happens; all the publications I write for have editors with whom I am in regular contact. I prepare lists of potential reviews, send them press releases, website info, etc., and then the review is assigned to me. It is very often not the one I would have chosen to review. Another common source of confusion is about the relationship between advertising and coverage, with many people believing you have to pay for ads in magazines in order to get a review. I've been writing criticism for many years and can assure you that there is a strict firewall between the editorial and advertising departments of magazines. It's true that an ad will be noticed by the staff of the magazine, and might put you or your gallery on their radar, so to speak. But there is no quid pro quo.

What advice for new critics to get published?

You've got to find out if you have the specific skills helpful to be an art critic. Can you, for example, write on strict deadline to a specific word length? The only way to find out it to try it, it's incredibly easy to start being an art critic, the trick is to stay at it, if that's your desire. If you're in school, write for the school newspaper or magazine. If there's a free weekly newspaper, etc., that you like, go see them and see if they are interested in criticism. Think a bit outside the box, too, if there's a music magazine you admire, see if they are curious about music/art intersections, etc. Write for free if you have to. When you've done that for a while, and have a portfolio of printed reviews, you can start contacting publications. Actually, if you're good at this, galleries and publications will start contacting you, there's a great hunger for new voices who can write. Also, criticism for magazines and newspapers is a branch of journalism, so anything you can learn about the processes of publication will be helpful. And, though I may be biased because of my own experiences, a good background in art history seems a plus.

What do you find more rewarding writing reviews or essays?

Essays are more financially rewarding, but I can't say I have any strict preference. I enjoy my opportunities to tackle bigger issues in an essay, have a few thousand words to string together some thoughts, write books and catalogue essays for museums, but I'm still fascinated by the 500-600 word exhibition review, it's at the core of much of what I do. When I started writing reviews a friend, another critic, told me that I would get bored writing them, that working to taut word lengths under publication pressure got annoying, how the reviews could become similar, etc. I've never found that to be true for me. There's nothing I find more interesting (and more terrifying) than having to write about brand new work by an artist who may not have much of a paper trail, someone I've got to puzzle out pretty quickly. Since I mostly write for national/international publications I have to assume that the vast majority of my readers haven't see the exhibition I'm reviewing, so I need to find a way to tell them about it that will be interesting and informative.

What do critics contribute to the arts community?

We're part of the mix, along with artists, dealers, curators, and collectors that in the aggregate help create the context of contemporary art. We can help conversations get started, and (sorry if this sound pretentious!) we're part of the peer group that begins the process of evaluation, of historical reckoning. It's an awkward process, sometimes painful and unfair, and sometimes altered by subsequent events. But it's the system that has evolved steadily over the last two centuries, that artists create art and then it leaves the studio and enters the world where it becomes a commodity, both financially and intellectually, that gets picked at and assessed, consumed in a way by its diverse audiences. I'm part of that audience, with the astounding good fortune that some art magazines, etc., are willing to let me think out loud, so to speak, about what I see.

James Yood has been an educator, critic, essayist and media commentator on visual arts for over 20 years. He is currently faculty at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, in the School of Art History, Criticism and Theory. Active as a contemporary art critic and essayist, Yood is Chicago correspondent for Artforum and temaceleste, and a regular contributor to GLASS magazine, American Craft, Aperture, and Art and Auction. Educated at the University of Wisconsin and at the University of Chicago, Yood is the author of several books on contemporary art, including Spirited Visions: Portraits of Chicago Artists, Gladys Nilsson, Second Sight; Printmaking in Chicago 1935-95, and Jon Kuhn: The Story of a Glass Sculpture, amongst others. Yood has lectured widely, is a consultant to Encyclopaedia Britannica and a regular contributor to WBEZ National Public Radio in Chicago. He has served as a panelist for the National Endowment for the Arts.