Tweet
by Eugene Rabkin
"New York, USA – Lately, I have come across several articles in the recurring genre of “criticism is dead.” I have seen such analysis on the subject of fashion, but also music, and of course, art, where this is old news indeed.
Ironically, these supposedly progressive think pieces that are trying to capture the zeitgeist, are applying a very old measuring stick as to why criticism does not matter. It boils down to the fact (which is actually not always a fact) that today’s criticism does not affect one’s commercial success. You would think that in the age of mass taste this would be pretty obvious by now. Criticism in art hasn’t mattered to commercial success since gallery owners have taken over as tastemakers in the mid-20th Century, and museums turned to putting on crowd-pleasing blockbusters. Criticism in fashion hasn’t really mattered to commercial success since the early aughts, if not before that, when conglomerates began to flex their marketing muscles. This is old news, and it’s time we stop thinking of a critic as having an ability to sink a major brand.
Why criticism really matters, and will continue to matter, is because there will always be a subset of intelligent, passionate people who will make their own judgments about fashion, and they will always seek either validation of their opinions or a well-argued retort. To be sure these people are in the minority, as far as the consumer class goes, but it’s always been that way.
The shift we need to make in attempting to understand criticism is the shift in how we envision the critic’s audience. Being a consumer is different from being an earnest follower of fashion. The former only requires a fat wallet, the latter brains, passion, and perseverance. Like any cultural discipline, fashion is a deep well that is richly rewarding for those who are willing to take a dive. The critics, when they are at their best, are its pearl divers.
When I think of true critics, I simply envision fashion fans par excellence. That’s what a critic is – a well-informed fan with deep knowledge of fashion history who is able to connect the dots and knows how to put his or her thoughts into words. What we must remember is that, ideally – and I have to be idealistic here, because criticism is a form of idealism – criticism is meant to be constructive. Criticism is done in the service of fashion – we criticize because we want fashion to be better. We want to champion the good, and denounce the bad. And there will always be a contingent of people who understand that and who want the same thing. For them, critics like Cathy Horyn, Robin Givhan, and Angelo Flaccavento will always matter."
Read the full article on SZ-MAG
"New York, USA – Lately, I have come across several articles in the recurring genre of “criticism is dead.” I have seen such analysis on the subject of fashion, but also music, and of course, art, where this is old news indeed.
Ironically, these supposedly progressive think pieces that are trying to capture the zeitgeist, are applying a very old measuring stick as to why criticism does not matter. It boils down to the fact (which is actually not always a fact) that today’s criticism does not affect one’s commercial success. You would think that in the age of mass taste this would be pretty obvious by now. Criticism in art hasn’t mattered to commercial success since gallery owners have taken over as tastemakers in the mid-20th Century, and museums turned to putting on crowd-pleasing blockbusters. Criticism in fashion hasn’t really mattered to commercial success since the early aughts, if not before that, when conglomerates began to flex their marketing muscles. This is old news, and it’s time we stop thinking of a critic as having an ability to sink a major brand.
Why criticism really matters, and will continue to matter, is because there will always be a subset of intelligent, passionate people who will make their own judgments about fashion, and they will always seek either validation of their opinions or a well-argued retort. To be sure these people are in the minority, as far as the consumer class goes, but it’s always been that way.
The shift we need to make in attempting to understand criticism is the shift in how we envision the critic’s audience. Being a consumer is different from being an earnest follower of fashion. The former only requires a fat wallet, the latter brains, passion, and perseverance. Like any cultural discipline, fashion is a deep well that is richly rewarding for those who are willing to take a dive. The critics, when they are at their best, are its pearl divers.
When I think of true critics, I simply envision fashion fans par excellence. That’s what a critic is – a well-informed fan with deep knowledge of fashion history who is able to connect the dots and knows how to put his or her thoughts into words. What we must remember is that, ideally – and I have to be idealistic here, because criticism is a form of idealism – criticism is meant to be constructive. Criticism is done in the service of fashion – we criticize because we want fashion to be better. We want to champion the good, and denounce the bad. And there will always be a contingent of people who understand that and who want the same thing. For them, critics like Cathy Horyn, Robin Givhan, and Angelo Flaccavento will always matter."
Read the full article on SZ-MAG