In discussions around contemporary art, writing is almost always presented as problematic. This has, no doubt, much to do with the similarly consistent framing of its cousin, art criticism, as being in a perpetual situation of crisis. But just as the practice of criticism is not limited to writing, especially if when considered around the more evocative notions of critique and criticality, writing too cannot be limited to criticism. Modes of writing around art are many and varied, encompassing journalism, art history, education and marketing as well as less visible forms both more prosaic, such as personal correspondence, and downright dreary, covering page after page of the inconceivably vast file of bureaucratic and administrative documents relating to art. But issues of literacy aside, writing itself is not in crisis. Indeed, it seems to be everywhere, in more places than it was ever before, even if these places are slightly different from those it previously inhabited. So what is it about art that makes the production of text around it so complicated?
The largest problem lies, I expect, in the somewhat embarrassing but at the same time altogether liberating fact that the idea of art itself has never been clearly defined, a situation made all the more apparent when it comes to contemporary art. If art writing is predicated on art, it is only as problematic as its subject. No amount of quantitative statistics and liberal democratic mental gymnastics devoted to justifying the role of art in society can escape the fact that art is unstable, unsustainable, excessive and ultimately unjustifiable, and that this is precisely what makes it so interesting in the first place. Art is, and should be, the... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline