Dave Hickey
Art Critic and Theorist

The interview was conducted by Ilana Stanger of TheArtBiz.com.

I think that critics--the role they play, the training they have--are one of the more mysterious aspects of the art world for emerging artists. Could you tell me a bit about how you came to write art criticism?

I began writing about art because I was interested in the gap between what we see and what we say. Also I wanted to write about things in the world that stayed in the world after I had written about them, so whatever I wrote would remain in a live relationship with its subject. If you write about a concert or a play or a public event, that event is gone and nothing remains but the writing. Works of art, however, survive as an ongoing critique of the critique you have written. I like that.

What is the role of the art critic within the art world? How much of an effect do you think critics have on what is being produced and sold, and is this positive or negative?

You need to remember that the art world is just a lot of people who buy, sell, exhibit, think about, talk about and write about art. Within this world critics are interested observers who document their interests, as distinct from scholars and journalists, who are purportedly disinterested observers. The simple truth, however, is that the art world is a small world that runs on talk. As a consequence, most of what a critic writes about art is not written for the art world at all but for people who are interested in the art world and want to know what art people are talking about. Critics over the course of their careers build up a reputation for being right or being wrong about things; people trust these reputations but not much; if power is defined as the power to make something that is not interesting interesting, critics have no power at all. Art has power.

How would you characterize the relationship between artists and critics?

Extraneous. Critics write about art; biographers and personality journalist write about artists.

You’ve been a gallery director, an editor, a freelance writer, and a professor. How have you been able to wear such different hats? What causes you to move from one field for the next?

The usual: circumstance, greed, whim, failure, restlessness.

You often talk about your initial--and continuing--love for arranging art on a wall, and have said that your ideal role as a curator would be to say, "Here is some stuff I found. Isn’t it interesting. Excuse me while I get out of the way." That’s quite different than your role as a critic and theorist, which of involves going deep into the art and expressing your opinions about it. What do you make of this contradiction?

The simplest way that I can explain it is to say that criticism is a consumer side practice and curating is a supply side practice. The critic is trying to make sense of the art before his or her eyes. Curators present things to people that they might wish to try to make sense of. A critic is trying to say one thing; a curator is trying to create a situation in which a lot of people might see and think and say a lot of different things. Critics try to stabilize; curators, ideally, try to destabilize, to create the possibility of new meanings.

Do you have any say in which students are admitted into the art program at University of Nevada, Las Vegas? If so, what do you look for?

I have some say, and, in general, I am looking for students who want to be artists rather than students who want to go to graduate school and study art. The difference is nearly always obvious from the work submitted.

What advice would you give to emerging artists? Is there a difference between advice you might give as a teacher, as a curator, as a gallery owner, or as a critic/theorist?

My advice is always to make a lot of art; to make a lot of art, then look at what you have made and then think about what you have done. If you think first, you will never do anything or you will do something boring. Art doesn’t exist until the artist has finished making it. The differences between one’s responses as a critic, teacher, dealer and curator are as follows: As a critic I presume the art is finished and on purpose. As a teacher, I presume the art needs work. So the same work that I might like as a critic, I might find wanting as a teacher, simply because my rule for looking at student art is: if you’re not sick don’t call that doctor. As a dealer you’re looking for quality, of course, but you’re also looking for evidence of the artist’s work habits and commitment to a long-term career. As a curator you’re looking for what fits.

This article was originally created for TheArtBiz.com. It appears on NYFA Interactive courtesy of the Abigail Rebecca Cohen Library.

The information contained in the above article is current as of its publication date.
Please be advised that this information may be out of date.