by Tatiane de Assis
On a visit to the studio of the artist Juliana dos Santos, she told me that she thinks of her exhibitions as an exercise. I borrow this way of conceiving exhibitions to shape my own practice in art criticism and cultural journalism. The texts are my exercise of dialog with the world.
This interview with the Chilean historian, philosopher, and art critic Gonzalo Leiva Quijada came about after a webinar in October 2024, held by the International Association of Art Critics (AICA) on the subject of ‘Paralysis and rupture in art criticism in Andean South America’. Part of the issues that concern me became questions for Gonzalo, ranging from his definition of his practice as a critic, to the crisis in this field, to the discussion on the racial diversity of actors in this field¹.
Quijada is a professor of philosophy and aesthetics at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, and holds a post-doctorate from the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at New York University. His books include Multitudes en sombras (2008), El golpe estético: dictadura militar en Chile, 1973–1989 (2012), and Sergio Larraín – biografia, estética y fotografia (2013).
The question and answer sections are accompanied by records of the Entre o azul e o que não me deixo/deixam esquecer [Between the blue and what I/they won’t allow myself/me to forget] installation by the aforementioned artist Juliana dos Santos. This is because I find in her investigation of the color blue a polysemy analogous to that found in the critical exercise.
Considering your practice, how would you define art criticism?
I define it as an exercise in putting a work, an artistic production, an exhibition, or an artist into perspective. Criticism implies ‘putting something into crisis’, tensioning, emphasizing values, proposals, materialities, and artistic repertoires within the art circuit.
Its function is as much to inform as to contextualize and set out lines for accessing and understanding the artistic proposal. Although, for me, the most important thing is to consider criticism as the shaping of a horizon, a memory, a record, and a notion of sensibilities in context.
Since the modern avant-garde, there has been a debate about the crisis of art criticism, motivated both by the contestation of current aesthetic parameters and by co-optation by the market. How do you deal with this in your practice?
The market is one of the components of art, but not the only one, nor the most important. Above all, one must emphasize the value of the artistic sensibility that is transformed into production, and the latter as a response to the uncertainties of the human condition. The result is a work that is exhibited, shown, displayed and, in some cases, sold. I’ve never worried about the market, although I encourage artists to exhibit at international fairs, where it seems that the market dominates the art world. However, neither galleries, curators, nor fairs are responsible for revealing the stigmas of the crisis in art and criticism. This is part of the process of restoring a sensitive fabric, which sometimes flows and at other times is strained.
Is broadening the art critic’s repertoire beyond the visual arts and the history of Western art a possible way of tackling this issue of the crisis in criticism?
Absolutely. An essential factor is the deepening of the critic’s training and their interest in nourishing themselves with new aesthetic and cultural considerations. It’s not just a question of visiting the art circuit and its institutions, but of recognizing that external cultural elements enrich one’s outlook and writing, such as science, politics, cinema, and literature.
With regard to co-optation by the market, what paths do you see for autonomous practice?
One has to distinguish between two moments: creation and exhibition/distribution. The market has a greater influence on the latter. Creation aimed at the market becomes merchandise and soon loses its symbolic effectiveness, erasing the passion and experimentation that are the driving forces behind art. The path I see is the emancipation of the artist from the demands of the market, such as trendy colors, common shapes, and digested messages. Above stereotyped tastes, a liberating matrix must impose itself, making the artist and their production something genuinely emancipatory.
Another justification for the crisis in criticism is the shrinking space for critical reflection in mass media and the decline in the number of specialized magazines. Can digital platforms and social networks help to recover this space?
This is a real situation. Faced with a shrinking publishing market and media industry, there is a need for fanzines, podcasts, websites, and blogs to disseminate critical thinking. There is a parallel digital universe that we need to explore in order to articulate and share our points of view. That’s why I believe that social networks and digital platforms are new communicative devices, and AI tools can help us spread our critical thinking.
Could the circulation of critical texts on social networks be one of the solutions?
Undoubtedly. Social networks offer us new communication possibilities, including with younger audiences who don’t frequent the traditional art circuit. Critics’ cooperatives should be created as new emerging mechanisms.
How do you assess the practice of criticism in the Brazilian art scene? Consider 1) innovation in formats other than textual and 2) co-optation by the market.
Observing the art scene from a distance and getting to know its main circuits, I see a few things: firstly, the dynamism of the art circuit, with its variety of public and private, state and urban initiatives. Secondly, how the relationship between established art and emerging art flows. Thirdly, the flexibility between avant-garde art and crafts, which reveals a mixture of materialities and a renewal of formats. The market is evident in the big cities, but it would be interesting if the other cities organized themselves as a federation of exhibition and sales spaces, promoting the nationalist character and identity of Brazilian art.
What effects do you see in the strengthening of the activity of the curator and in the crisis of art criticism, thinking about the analysis of works and exhibitions?
I believe that the curator is the new functionality that critics need to focus on. The curator has the advantage of inserting themselves directly into the exhibition circuit, receiving greater recognition than the critic who is cloistered in the university. The curator has an adaptability that every critic should have, ensuring the longevity of their writing project and their analytical influence on the art circuit.
At an AICA seminar in which you took part, Mercedes Perez Bergliaffa spoke about the distinction between art criticism by academics and by journalists in Argentina. How do you assess this issue in Brazil?
As far as I know, the difference is between communicating and supporting. The desire to communicate is in the veins of cultural journalism, which fulfills an essential function by publicizing exhibitions and artists. This exercise is a vital platform for the art world. On the other hand, universities have taken on criticism through more restricted epistemological proposals. Thus, both journalistic and academic criticism are complementary in a country like Brazil, where there are many information circuits. Both are essential for art to be recognized, consumed, and valued by citizens.
Brazil has made progress in terms of racial diversity among artists and curators, but this hasn’t been reflected in criticism. How do you see this issue in Chile?
In Chile, the racial issue was not as prominent as in Brazil. As early as the Modern Art Week, Brazilian modernists addressed issues related to Afro-descendant, indigenous, and subaltern groups. However, for a long time, criticism was limited to the main universities, dominated by an urban, white elite. In the last 20 years there have been significant changes. Marginalized groups not only make art, but also construct critical discourses, even within unexpected spaces, such as communities and the Amazon.
Something similar happened in Chile, where a white Europeanized elite co-opted the universities, the market, and criticism. The emergence of new universities and the opening up to previously marginalized social sectors have broadened the spectrum of criticism. Today, ethnic minorities, such as the Mapuche people, not only excel in art, but also produce critical theories. The same happens with migrants, sexual minorities, and people living in the outskirts. An important role in this process has been played by the Fondart program, which, through calls for proposals, has allowed many critics from local communities and diverse backgrounds to highlight artists and exhibitions that represent them.
¹ This debate has also been carried out collectively through a recently created group of art critics, Pipoca.
About the author
Tatiane de Assis is a reporter and art critic for piauí magazine