Artnet Editor On Having Own Show Reviewed
Here are a few interesting facts:
- Walter Robinson, the editor of Artnet, is also a painter.
- He currently has an exhibition of his work on display at a Chelsea gallery, Metro Pictures.
- The show received a rave review from Charlie Finch in Artnet.
And when I say rave, note the following graph:
"You are going to hear a lot of balderdash about Walter Robinson’s work as forerunners of John Currin, Karen Kilimnik and others. Don’t believe it: they never heard of these paintings and Robinson’s oeuvre proudly stands on its own, sui generis."
I sent Robinson a question:
"Were you at all concerned that having your own writer review your own work in your magazine would appear to be a conflict?"
Robinson's response:
"I’d do almost anything to get attention from dweebs like you! W"
Okay.
For more of an answer, I called Robinson’s boss, Artnet Worldwide president Bill Fine. He noted, first, that Robinson did not edit the Finch piece. Ben Davis, the magazine’s associate editor, oversaw the review.
"Charlie is a freelance guy and a contributor, but we don’t muzzle him or control him,” said Fine. “I suspect Walter would publish it if it were negative.”
Isn’t it unlikely the review would have been negative?
“I think generally speaking most media in the art field, they’re generally publishing positive things. You wouldn’t see a copy of Art in America or ARTnews with all the negatives. That particular show did very well.”
That’s not the point, I told Fine. Isn’t the idea of conflict not merely that there was no conflict but to remove the appearance of conflict?
Fine then told me that Robinson and Finch had a “difficult relationship” over the years.
“I actually brought Charlie into the company. But I think initially Walter probably fired him two or three times in the early going. You know, Charlie’s a real asset to the company. I think he has a lot of eyeballs. The art business is fairly incestuous anyway. You might find that's the story.”
While it may appear there is a conflict, anyone who knows them knows Finch would not write a kiss-ass Robinson review (of other people, maybe, but not WR). No way. It didn't bother me at all.
"I think generally speaking most media in the art field, they’re generally publishing positive things."
You might find that THIS is the real story... There is no such thing as criticism anymore... it's all PR.
Clement Greenberg, RIP.
Walter Robinson is an honorable guy who has managed to make a living from his editorial stuff to keep him going as an artist. Admirable.
It is a great show. Why shouldn't Walter be praised for work he did decades ago?
Plus, anyone who reads artnet, knows Charlie Finch isn't a pushover.
America is a great country, because we artists have the opportunity to what ever the hell we like. There are those people who think they made the first cave painting, those people are the ones who are the first to criticize and the last to subsidize. Many of us have great art lives in spite of these people. Live and let live I say.
Bob Ragland - A NON starving HAPPY artist in Denver,Colorado.
I showed Walter Robinson's work 25 years ago at City Without Walls because it was excellent. His career in arts writing is commendable, but I do agree that the review within the publication he edits presents a conflict of interest; if only to undermine the credibility of its conclusions and the independence of the writer. It was not well handled from the editorial side. The lameness, hostility and defensiveness of the publisher and Robinson's responses shows that they both know this too. Art criticism is under enough threat from without that it surely does not need to be trivialized from within. A simple disclaimer from the publisher published in that issue describing how the reviewer was selected and how the essay was edited to maintain objectivity would have done the trick. Regardless, Walter is a gifted artist and deserves fair play.
Plus, anyone who reads artnet, knows Charlie Finch isn't a pushover.
You might know that as an Artnet writer, Ms. Tuchman. But his mental state is not knowable to the casual observer. The involved reader, on the other hand, knows that Finch and Robinson have a history of lashing out together at other art writers, in particular, art bloggers. Presumably it was Robinson's hostility to art critics who write online (oddly enough) that led him to tell Edgers to shove it when asked a totally legitimate, predictable question.
Really, from a media-ethics question, what about this situation is defensible?
I posted earlier to say I wasn't bothered by this. Perhaps, though, to appease the wary, a clear disclaimer should have been made...?
The problem here has nothing to do with the relationship, and that's just to throw us off the real story. Which is that Editors also decide what gets written about and what doesn't. It's true that you want working artists also to critique, but the conflicts need to be disclaimed upfront. ANY relationship between the publication and the artist and/or the writer and the artist, needs to be made clear.
Press is press. It's not about whether the review is negative or not. He got a review, and many, many others did not.
I think that the presumption of objectivity in most non-fiction publishing, especially that concerned with contemporary art, is a non-starter. Friends review friends and enemies with regularity in that small world and many know Robinson as a writer and painter as well as an editor. It makes complete sense that his own publication should cover his exhibition. I would have covered it myself if I had been in New York, not because I write for Artnet but because I have admired Robinson's painting since the early '80s.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
browse this blog
by categoryrelated links
INside Boston.com
in the area