A Critic Answers Questions
A Critic Answers Questions
Editor's note: Cesare A.X. Syjuco, who now writes art criticism for the Manila Times' cultural section, has written art criticism for publications overseas, and was the regular art critic for the Sunday Magazine of The Times Journal. He is an editor of the country's only visual arts bi-monthly.
Published in: The Manila Times, October 04, 1986
IN the following interview, Syjuco, upon our request, answers some questions from Jacinto Sotto, an artist who writes occasionally about art.
Q: Of your very diverse cultural interests, art criticism is only the most recent. What if anything in particular, prompted you to assume this new role?
A: The lack of real art critics in the country today. The lack of intelligent art criticism in the country today. The almost total absence of "literate" critical writing in the country today. Probably all of the above. A very wise teacher once said that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Q: From your own personal viewpoint, what exactly is wrong with local art criticism at the moment?
A: Well, first of all, there isn't enough of it. Secondly, the little there is lacking in sincerity and boldness. And thirdly, much of it went out with the dark ages.
Q: Towards what ends, therefore, do you aspire in your own work as an art critic?
A: For one thing, I would like to update art criticism. For another, I would like to humanize it. That is to say, less pseudo-academic mumbo-jumbo, and a lot more "gut feel." There are generally two types of professional art critics in the Philippines. There's the kind who counts the moles on a nude, and who likes to delve primarily on inconsequential details. And then there's the kind who likes to impress you with his or her reading list, but who actually says little or nothing in between long and languid quotations. Neither gets across very much. And who can blame the reader?
Q: A lot of small art journals have come and gone in the last two decades. Do you think we have an audience for serious art criticism?
A: There is always an audience for good writing of any sort. If criticism is written as it should be, I do not see why it cannot at least be interesting reading. It is not right that we should blame the genre for its current shortcomings. Perhaps it has not had enough competent practitioners to vindicate it as a viable literary form.
Q: Our local art community is relatively small. Do you think that there are artists (whose works you've written negatively about) who take your criticism of them personally?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you say that this might be a very real deterrent for those who might otherwise have been encouraged to take up the challenge of local art criticism?
A: I think that rather than being deterred, potential art critics will take heart in the knowledge that certain taboos are rapidly being surmounted. And while I do not relish the role of the fall guy, it is important that we begin somewhere.
Q: Offhand, do you believe that there are enough potential art critics with the ability to discern the truth in works of art?
A: What is vital is that we recognize that no one critic has an exclusive on the truth. If some artists are understandably upset, perhaps it is only because there is so little art criticism being written that the little there is gets to sound like a final verdict. The ideal situation exists when you have many divergent opinions at play. The critic is not the judge and jury. Rather, he is more like an attorney for the prosecution or the defense. The interplay of conflicting insights is the goal in any case.
Q: Does the answer necessarily lie in having more professional art critics?
A: Yes and no. We have more than enough "professional" art critics. What we need at this point is more critics who can write decently, as well as more critics who will write what they really think and feel. We have very few critics who have strong opinions, and therefore, not enough opinions going around.
Q: Conversely, do you believe that we have enough art exhibits worth writing about?
A: Yes. Definitely. Good, bad, mediocre — we have more than enough to write about. Were it only possible, I would like to comment on every exhibit that comes along. But as it is now, I am lucky to cover a third of everything that is exhibited in Manila. Perhaps someday it will be possible.
Q: You yourself are an accomplished artist. Do you feel that being an artist puts you in a better position to analyze the work of your colleagues than, say, someone who has never been an artist?
A: Not necessarily. But I think that being an artist gives me an intuitive edge.
Q: Does your being an artist ever get in the way of your impartiality? Does it not make you more or less inclined for or against certain types of art and certain types of artists?
A: There is only one "ART", although it may have limitless manifestations. Art is art, or it isn’t. Speaking for myself, I work very hard at maintaining a very impersonal point of view. But at the same time, it would be ridiculous to say that any art critic is ever without bias. Be he an artist or not, artistic preferences will always exist in an individual who feels strongly about art. That is precisely why there should be many influences, many varied opinions, a great many options, and everything pitted against everything else. But show me an impartial critic and I’ll show you an impotent one.
Q: What then is the role of the critic if not to wager an impartial opinion?
A: There is less than a fine line between impartiality in principle and impartiality in fact. One acknowledged role of the critic is to wager comment on works of art based on intuition, a clear conscience, and a certain level of critical competence. But then again, this is in principle only. I like to think that criticism's primary role is to react publicly to works of art in direct relation to the critic's perception of art itself, providing a very tangible link in a complex system of "feedback loops" between the artist and his audience. The so-called "rendering of judgment" is an incidental consequence of the form it takes, which in this case is conventional art criticism.
Q: What makes a good art critic?
A: From a popular standpoint, it is probably someone with whom the reader agrees more often than not. As for me, I think that a good critic should possess insight and courage both.
Q: Has writing about art deepened your own perception as an artist?
A: It has made me much too analytical for my own good. If anything, the only benefit I have derived from it as an artist is virtually unafraid of criticism. I know only too well now that the critic is just another guy with a typewriter and some rather strong opinions inclined one way or another.
Q: Has writing criticism adversely affected your artmaking in any other way?
A: In a very real sense, it has almost completely eclipsed my work as a painter. But this is a matter of personal conviction, really. There are moral and ethical considerations that prevent my exhibiting as often as I would like, at least while I am actively involved in writing art criticism.
Q: Do you believe that artists themselves should be their own worst critics?
A: No! Never!
[images]
‘VENDING MACHINE’ Chromolitho in Germany, 1908
‘OPERAZIONE NECESSARIA’ Chromolitho in Italy, 1913
‘SILENCER’ Chromolitho in Germany, 1905
THESE images were lifted from the book ‘Fantasy Postcards’ by William Ouellette. Describing himself as ‘an artist, writer, collector and serious student of the seemingly trivial,’ Oullette has lectured extensively on turn-of-the-century novelties, and has recently embarked on a major series of lectures illustrated by choice examples from his collection of over 10,000 postcards. The examples reproduced in his book date from the 1890’s up to the end of the First World War. According to the author, ‘these nightmarish images reveal a sadism which is startling to us today, but which in its time was taken merely as a joke, on sale for all to share.’
I have chosen these images, specifically, because they represent the way that I, as an artist, used to feel about critics in general. – C.A.X.S.
* * *
Cesare A.X. Syjuco, “A Critic Answers Questions” (page 1 of 1), The Manila Times, October 04, 1986
