In a post about the panel discussion at Red Dot, Harry reveals that his "favorite part was bloggers recounting their favorite big-traffic headlines. Who can top How to preserve a chocolate Santa butt plug? I didn't get a chance to ask a question, but I would've asked: is there something innate in the medium that makes a successful blog unable to have thought-out critical writing? After all, it takes time to look and to think and to write this kind of material. Can meaningful ciriticsm be Twittered?" Read more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a great question, Daily Gusto. Perhaps we can get a thread going.
For me, time is one big factor. I think of myself as a reporter with opinions rather than as a critic, bringing some journalistic intelligence to my writing. I go for brevity--but considered brevity--trying to fold in researched information, recollection, observation and critical thinking. And pictures. And I try to blog within the constraints of a painting practice, travel and some teaching. I'm not going for The New Yorker-length pieces.
Another issue is the nature of the blogosphere. One of the things I like about reading blog accounts of events and exhibitions is that I can get the truly critical, the observational, the irreverent, and the truly ridiculous--each with one click. Reading becomes a much more participatory activity as I piece together multiple views of, say, the Blogger Panel or the Armory events, or the Miami art fairs.
And then there is the issue of training. Critical writing requires some training--in critical thinking, in journalism, in understanding how to look at something and develop a considered opinion. In the blogosphere, anyone with an opinion--well-formed, ill-formed, or uninformed--can create a blog and post away.
When I reading blogs I don't expect--nor do I really want--long think pieces on the screen. Call me old-fashioned but for that I still want to stil with a book or magazine.
Post a Comment