50,000 copies of each issue to be produced and distributed.
articles in beginning
reviews in middle. Around 6 per show, each 1-2 pages. Lots of images.
In back, letters to editor, one cartoon.
Critics will be (primarily) critics of other genres (theatre, books, music, etc.)
all shows reviewed will have more than one reviewer, sometimes one that related to its field, for example a Chris Burden show reviewed by a theatre critic, but sometimes assignments will be arbitrary.
Very few of us are just artists anymore. Everyone has a day job. Thus, I am thrilled to introduce artVIEWS, a new contemporary art criticism publication that reflects this current culture. Just as artists are no longer just artists; neither are our art critics. They have other day jobs, too: being critics for other arts fields. artVIEWS has assembled an incredible team of passionate and well-versed scholars and critics in the fields of music, theatre, literature, movie/television, and fashion. This team of critics will bring you monthly reports of recent contemporary art shows.
And since we are already leaping bounds of genre, why not leap the boundaries of location? artVIEWS will primarily review shows in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and will include art from at least one other US city per issue. One month we may review a gallery opening Miami, the next, an instillation in Tulsa. The critics reviewing that locale’s shows will be from that city, and appointed by our head critic in each genre.
Art, of course, is our focus here. While we may have book and fashion designers lending their lenses to contemporary art, the purpose of the varying critiques is to give the work multiple, trained, critical viewings. In most magazine reviews, word limit causes readers to believe that Olafur Eliasson’s recent show at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago is simply about color and nature. But it also contains elements of theatricality, kinetic experience, and activation – elements to which I am sure our theatre reviewer will devote his precious words. By giving works multiple reviews, our readers get a more robust and holistic experience of the work, as most readers will not have the privilege of experiencing the work in person.
I believe artVIEWS gives our readers across the country an “in” to the nation-wide art scene. When you walk into an art space, you see the work from more than one vantage point, you activate different senses, you relate work not just to art history, but to the culture in which we live. This magazine will give those perspectives to anyone interested in reading. This magazine is for the contemporary art-literate, to give them new perspectives on seeing. This magazine is for the contemporary art-curious, to give them options of which perspective to choose, and inspiring them to create their own opinion. This magazine is for the contemporary art-illiterate, who are offered pages of voices to explore, giving them multiple introductions to art.
With hope, this magazine will also bridge the gaps between the arts. With day jobs and our own art occupying our time, most of us don’t have the leisure to lend our spare time to supporting other genres of the arts. artVIEWS will give arts communities a reason to come together, extending our creative work to wider creative audiences.
Not to fear, artVIEWS will employ visual art critics and scholars, too. Issues will also contain articles from an art-perspective on new art venues and category-defying concepts. These articles will tackle such issues as Murakami’s consumer and fashion-based art and the use of blogs as public catalogues for artistic preference and inspiration.
I am excited for you to explore art from all angles.
-Andrew Karas, Collaborator-in-Chief
I found it curious that if this publication is geared towards the "very few of us are just artists anymore," how can it also be pitched to the "the contemporary art-illiterate?" This seems to imply that contemporary artists are art-illiterate, which seems to not make much sense if they are engaged in the arts. Also, I thought it was contradictory to have a head of a genre, yet have reviews from deliberately outside genres.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did really appreciate the focus on all aspects of the artistic world and how they did function in our everyday lives.
I thought a good motto for this magazine would be, "for the contemporary art-curious" because it seems to sum up the heart of the magazine: broad coverage so that people can become more well-versed in the arts in general. This seems like the ideal magazine for someone looking to chat with a stranger over-coffee. I imagine it has a very community-like and far-reaching feel, similar to Reddit, although the content is not user-submitted.
While your magazine strives to bridge the gap and connect the dots for readers in the art world, it also seems to be mainly focused on art in America, as you only named three primary American cities, and a random fourth that would be featured in each issue. If you truly want to have the widest perspective possible and include both occupation and vocabulary (you mentioned theatricality, kinetic experience, and activation), wouldn't it make sense to include a more universal approach? Maybe include a city from a different continent, and make sure to have all of the continents represented?
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I love your idea of blending the art world and its appropriated vocabulary with that of a more personal nature. I feel that the most valuable part of my education at Northwestern has been that it is well-rounded, and exemplifying that in your magazine is truly an accomplishment.
I am especially interested in the notion of arbitrary critique; what is your desired outcome of asking, say, a dance critic to review a gallery show? Do you feel that our necessity for 'certification' would limit our ability to take seriously such a review from somebody not trained in the comprehension of higher ideals in a particular area of knowledge?
ReplyDeleteIt seems logical to blend the various arts into one magazine, but where do you draw the line between creating something that identifies with contemporary artistic creation and what most people would see as a 'culture magazine'? And does this differentiation matter?
I truly appreciate your focus on how no one is just an artist or a critic, and I agree that it that only adds to the interesting perspective of your writers. However, wouldn't it be even more interesting if you had a more obscure perspective in your articles? For example, what about exploring the perspective of a construction worker/artist or an elementary school teacher/artist? Because you are distributing your 'zine across the country, I like your idea of reviewing gallery works in cities all over the country. If your writers are just as diverse, I feel as if your theme will be even stronger.
ReplyDelete