Temporary published an interesting essay on slow art criticism. I generally agree with most of it and it is what we do here at PORT but there need to be a few clarifications just for discussion's sake. First off the idea that there is a "crisis in criticism" is odd because "Crisis" and "Criticism" both share the same Greek root of Krisis. In other words, without a crisis there is no criticism, which supports the articles successful attack on "International Art English." It is a style that embodies no crisis, just a pedagogical resume of precedents (becoming an odd careerist statement of belief rather than critical assessment). Instead, I agree that spending a great deal of time teasing out the individual experience of the critic then comparing it with other relevant experiences is generally the thoughtful and responsible thing to do. This is different than simply forming an opinion though, a critic engages the matrix of ideas around the work rather than simply pronounce. That said a critic's most sensitive instrument is arguably themselves... and yes some critique me for bringing myself into everything but it is very much on purpose and in the tradition of Baudelaire, Herodotus, David Sylvester, Matthew Collings etc. where the critic is an on scene interlocutor and historian. Owning up to that inescapable subjectivity is a kind of honesty, which we lack from IAE... which is just junior varsity level college art curator wall text. Its just a dressed up CV in code and a kind of advertising.

Did the Knoedler settlement just ruin the best chance to enhance art market transparency? Let's just say that expensive collectibles markets have always been a haven for hiding and transferring money.

A fascinating report on the College Art Association's latest conference. Millennials aren't joiners... yes and no, like Gen X they are suspicious of anything "Boomer" and or they did not build from the ground up? I also wonder if they realize that Miranda July isn't a Millennial?