Beyond criticism

100vw, 800px" />Laura Gascoigne demonstrates how Artbollocks is now recognised as a joke among almost everyone excepting the time-serving devotees of State Art.

In January the Guardian’s G2 section published an article by Andy Beckett titled ‘Er, anyone know what transversal means’? It reported on the publication

in an American art journal last year of an essay identifying a

mentioned 179 times more often

in IAE than Standard English (a figure that sounds suspiciously like



For detailed process, you can “visit here” or contact

multiple of


one). They also detected in its post-structural structure a genetic resemblance to “inexpertly translated google_ad_client = "ca-pub-3967079123942817"; French”. They observed that it “has everything to do
with English, but is emphatically


not English”. They also found it “oddly pornographic” and concluded that, like google_ad_slot = "6023194682"; pornography,
two contemporary art worlds run on parallel tracks, with no points or crossings. The wrong src="//"> sort of artists come up through /* xin-1 */ the wrong sort of galleries promoted by the wrong sort of /* xin2 */ press releases written in the wrong sort of language – a language otherwise known as Standard English.

Nine years ago, John Keane wrote

a letter to the Guardian in google_ad_height = 90; which google_ad_width = 970; he distinguished between three categories of google_ad_height = 90; contemporary art: 1)

金名网(是全球领先的域名交易服务机构,同时也是Icann认证的注册商,拥有六年的域名交易经验,年交易额达3亿元以上。我们承诺,提供简单、安全、专业的第三方服务! 为了保证交易的安全,整个交易过程大概需要5个工作日。

Searle approved (and so reviewed); 2) non-Searle approved but bearing the imprimatur of the art establishment of Charles Saatchi (and so reviewed); 3) the rest (ignored). His conclusion was that, for all the critical google_ad_client = "ca-pub-3967079123942817"; attention they got, category three artists might as well be on the planet Tharg. He signed off: “What’s the collective noun for art critics? Herd, I think.” The Guardian’s Letters editor published his

didn’t know about. Keane was himself once a beneficiary of this old belief system, and it’s not really the critics’ fault that he is no longer. The system itself no longer exists. Arts editors, most of whom have little personal interest in or knowledge of the visual google_ad_slot = "7160667483"; arts and regard them as a tiresomely hard sell to a general readership, no longer trust art critics to go
out on a limb with reviews of artists they themselves haven’t heard of.
They feel safer confining them to critiques of celebrity artists in major galleries. While pop music


critics are /* 9-970x90 */ allowed to write about pub gigs by unknown bands and theatre critics
can review fringe productions, it’s considered too risky to let art critics introduce readers to artists whose names might be new to them. google_ad_slot = "8637400688"; But isn’t that’s half the point of being a critic? Surely that’s what arts pages are for.

I’ve read the Guardian loyally for

at the Mall Galleries in June, for which two dozen critics have each selected an established artist they feel the public ought to know about. As a test of the depths of our own ignorance, the experiment has succeeded beyond expectations. Of the 25 names put forward by my fellow


critics I’d only heard of seven, this despite
spending my waking hours attached to a drip-feed of press releases. Whether their names ever reach the ears of the public is another matter. That will depend on
the arts editors.

Laura Gascoigne