Jakub Wydra
A CRITIQUE OF CRITICISM: POWER AND DOMINANCE IN THE MEDIA OF CONTEMPORARY ART CRITICISM

Definitions of “institutional critique” rarely go beyond outlining a broad scope of artistic activities. However, it could be beneficial to adopt a broader approach to institutional critique as a practice of distrustful examination of hierarchies and power in cultural organisations or community‑based competitions and events. In its monitoring of the hidden, often political, conditioning of the functioning of institutions¹ and a general sensitivity to ethical, social, and economic issues – in short, inequalities in the art world² – institutional critique should be vitally interested in art criticism.

A peripheral discipline in theory, it usually belongs with the history and theory of art in scientific and organisational terms; part of an academic niche, connected with cultural institutions or, occasionally, the media market, it has rather precarious status. Simultaneously, its specificity means that it is a social construct, subjective and emotional, with a relatively high degree of independence (compared to other fields of “scientific” criticism) from a shared set of clear general rules.³

Still, criticism constitutes an important institution in the art world, acting as a regulator co‑responsible for building autonomy in the art field.⁴ Even if canons are ultimately shaped by art history, they are contemporarily operated by criticism, acting as a go‑between for the artwork and the general public. In this way, it is accountable for legitimising the presence of artist and artwork in the art world.⁵

From a local (everyday) perspective, the “entire body of critics” play a role far more vital than creating the discourse that constitutes the contemporary art field or class distinction.⁶ As a social institution within the art world, criticism has at its disposal visibility, one of the most important forms of capital in contemporary art, influencing economic prospects and broad communal significance, and is free to distribute it.⁷ It has been known since Linda Nochlin’s times⁸ that existing patterns and canons need to be approached with critical attention and, most of all, that the “professional” narrative that reigns supreme in the art world is to be distrusted as an increasing number of professions active in it are being noticed, a fact that has been demonstrated by the collection of conversations To wszystko nie robi się samo⁹ or the Change of Exhibition show at the Arsenal Gallery in Białystok; despite all this, art criticism keeps eluding institutional critique. This is so even if the latter does acknowledge the potentially conflictual position of art criticism.¹⁰ Noticed are – regardless of political stance – conflicts of interest between critics, institutions and artists,¹¹ and the weak and subservient position of “intellectual discourse” critical of capital exploiting the field of art.¹²

Unfortunately, earlier attempts to address the subject have remained patchy, adopting narrow perspectives in their exploration of art criticism. The condition of criticism and its relation with philosophy as well as the history and theory of art have been looked into,¹³ and self‑referential reflections and discussions appear regularly – suffice it to mention the essay Archipelag, link, troll. Krytyka dzisiaj,¹⁴ or a more recent attempt to retrospectively “bridge the gaps” in the presence of critical texts.¹⁵

These threads may well benefit from augmentation; if the existence of art worlds and their effect on the production, reception and position of artworks calls for a sociological perspective,¹⁶ it should be founded on the exploration of elements particularly relevant to institutional critique – power and dominance relations. One of the main resources involved in their creation is

the privileged access to discourse and communication. […] In our case it may mean that language users or communicators have more or less freedom in the use of special discourse genre or styles, or in the participation in specific communicative events and contexts.¹⁷

In its wide sense, art criticism exercises control over the aforementioned discourse almost single‑handedly. If dominance is to be understood as the potential for creating and preserving inequalities by a narrow elite or institution,¹⁸ then investigating the position of criticism will necessitate reflection on this topic. To simplify for the time being the institutional and communal complexity of arts media: they wield a powerful influence by gatekeeping themes, institutions, curators and artists, as a behind‑the‑scenes “cultural mafia” or within the framework of “Warsaw centrism.”

The aim of this text is, therefore, to perform a preliminary examination of the “dominance” of selected critical media by analysing the discourse they control. While enabling further exploration of the role of arts media, their programme and relationship with the artistic community, this will also provide an opportunity to raise objections and hold a debate surrounding the power of the leading critical media. In the spirit of institutional critique, the question is posed whether Polish art criticism is critical and self‑critical, or whether it reproduces the inequalities that exist in the art field as a whole.

To give an answer to the above questions, it is necessary to start with sketching out the Polish media sector related to contemporary criticism, and thus to place the article in the right context. In fact, art criticism is not as hegemonic as the previous paragraphs might suggest. Quite the opposite: it is chronically underfunded and most authors do not earn their living as critics, a situation that seems distinctive of both the media market and the cultural sector.¹⁹ Decisions made in editorial offices are shaped by many factors: limited funds for fees, the need for quantitative selection of content, organisational, geographical and social choices, and a subject’s potential for “clickability.”²⁰ It should be pointed out that an accurate assessment of the choices regarding critical publications is not an easy one to make within one short article.

The condition of critical media in Poland is poor, with “low‑circulation local periodicals, read by few.”²¹ Only a few are still printed, including Notes na 6 Tygodni and Contemporary Lynx, the latter published in English (and rather internationally oriented). Possibly the most influential ones, chiefly because of their stable position and relatively long history, Dwutygodnik and Magazyn Szum only appear online, as do academic magazines (Restart in Kraków, Format in Wrocław), journals published by art galleries and institutions (Magazyn RTV, Obieg) as well as those that function independently or at the intersection of the aforementioned areas (biweeklies Czas Kultury, artpapier).²² New media emerge on a regular basis (Mint Magazine), taking the place of ephemeral periodicals. A separate category is formed by non‑arts media in which critical texts are printed with varying frequency (Vogue, Polityka, “Gazeta Wyborcza”, Przekrój). It seems that critical blogs are now a thing of the past; they have been superseded by both individual and media‑related podcasts.

Critical discourse analysis

The research approach adopted in this text is critical discourse analysis. It is sensitive enough to detect dominance and inequality, and, despite its obvious sociological connotations, it goes beyond disciplines and primarily involves the analysis of language to facilitate the exposure of hidden power relations.²³ Its central focus is on privileged dominant groups that hold the power viewed as access to social resources such as position, status, education and knowledge.²⁴ Critical discourse analysis is supposed to be “general, structural and focused on groups, while involving power relations between groups”²⁵ in order to discover further “(re)production of dominance.”²⁶ It is worth stressing that this is not a method but rather a family of approaches characterised primarily by the analyst’s commitment to change.

This paper uses only selected elements of critical discourse analysis as it takes as its subject matter written text which overlooks discussions taking place within the artistic community (both formal and informal) and “non‑traditional” forms of critical materials which affect the field, or the content of discussed artistic practices. Non‑arts media that occasionally publish critical texts are not included in the article for formal reasons.

Not all critical media have been taken into account either. The key selection criterion was the language and general position of a medium, resulting from its standing in the artistic community and continued presence on the market. This was a direct outcome of the adopted research approach; it was crucial to look at those periodicals that were central, dominant and regulated the domain of visual arts. In this way, from the group of media mapped at the beginning, the following were chosen as subjects of a final analysis: Magazyn Szum, Notes na 6 Tygodni, and the visual arts section of Dwutygodnik.

Needless to say, these are Warsaw‑based journals (published by Fundacja Kultura Miejsce /Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw, Fundacja Bęc Zmiana, History Meeting House), and events taking place in the capital or institutions operating there are expected to be slightly over‑represented. Even so, each claims to be a predominantly nationwide periodical, not restricted to covering local events. Always clear about their location, they nevertheless do their best to maintain an image of national magazines; it even seems that Nn6T and Szum actively position themselves as media providing information on a supra‑local scale, both containing “news” sections (Orientuj się and Na dobry początek).

The focus of this paper is solely on critical texts. For this reason, not all published materials were examined – sponsored content, event announcements, general overviews and podcasts were excluded. The only journal entirely devoted to visual arts is Magazyn Szum, so materials published in the two other magazines that did not directly concern the field of art were also left out. Additionally, a time span was decided on, limiting the number of texts scrutinised to those published in 2023.

Out of the 184 texts that were eventually analysed 100 had appeared in Szum, 57 in Dwutygodnik, and 27 in Nn6T. In the course of the analysis, the following codes were classified: type of text (essay, critical text, conversation, news item), specific institution or event, topic (review, book, broader phenomenon), critics, artists and curators. In the case of reviews, a negative tone of the article was also marked – notably, a certain level of arbitrariness for this variable was ineluctable.

The results obtained from the review of critical texts were divided into four thematic groups: geographical‑institutional interdependencies, topics addressed, authors’ profiles, and an introduction to qualitative analysis, supplementing preliminary quantitative observations.

Geographical‑institutional interdependencies

The first, basic question as to who gets included (noticed and discussed)²⁷ in the critical discourse pertained in this study principally to cultural institutions. 109 texts²⁸ give information on exhibitions, events, publications and activities staged by 70 institutions, most of which appear only once. A small group of 18 galleries and museums feature at least twice, with the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw (8), Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź (7), Museum of Warsaw (6), Arsenal Gallery in Białystok (5) being the most frequently discussed.

The easiest way to begin an analysis of institutional presence is to make a geographical division demonstrating that Warsaw’s position is the strongest (42, 38.5%) compared with the rest of the country (55, 50.5%) and abroad (12, 11%).

Wykres 1. Obecność instytucji z: Warszawy, Wrocławia, Łodzi, Krakowa, Białegostoku, Gdańska oraz pozostałych polskich (Poznań, Orońsko, Bytom, Szczecin, Bielsko‑Biała, Zielona Góra, Toruń, Sopot, Opole) i zagranicznych (Londyn, Berlin, Amsterdam, Kolonia, Prizren, Ostrawa, Praga, Recklinghausen, Wenecja) miast. Opracowanie własne.

Chart 1. Presence of institutions from: Warsaw, Wrocław, Łódź, Kraków, Białystok, Gdańsk and other Polish (Poznań, Orońsko, Bytom, Szczecin, Bielsko‑Biała, Zielona Góra, Toruń, Sopot, Opole) and foreign (London, Berlin, Amsterdam, Cologne, Prizren, Ostrava, Prague, Recklinghausen, Venice) cities. Own elaboration.
These data gain particular significance in comparison with data collected by the Central Statistical Office concerning art galleries and museums – in both cases, Warsaw‑based institutions constitute less than 15% of all those operating in Poland. Interestingly, the distinct over‑representation of establishments located in Warsaw does not wane despite the informal boycott of institutions associated with the then Law and Justice government that continued throughout 2023.²⁹ The appearance of the Zachęta National Gallery of Art (2), Ujazdowski Castle Centre for Contemporary Art (1) or the National Museum in Warsaw (1) is fairly infrequent, considering their major position and the financial resources at their disposal, which normally translate into an institution’s visibility.

Combining these data with the results obtained in the “negative tone” analysis of reviews is equally interesting. Among 15 analysed texts out of a total of 55 – only critical texts devoted to one exhibition or event (e.g. festival, gallery week) were taken into account – only 4 (27%) concerned “Warsaw” (out of 19 in 55, or 35% of all texts), while the remaining ones were divided between other large cities (Kraków – 5, Łódź – 3, Gdańsk, Poznań and Wroclaw – 1 each). This means not only that Kraków exhibitions received most negative reviews, but also that institutions from cities collectively addressed by only 36% (20) of the analysed texts “generated” as many as 73% (11) negative reviews (!).

It is also worth having a look at the ownership structure of institutions before putting an interpretation on the results; 48 (69%) of all those analysed are public, while 22 (31%) privately owned. Half of the private ones are located in Warsaw (11 out of 22, 50%), another 4 (out of 22) outside Poland; the “absence” of the rest of the country may suggest a weaker communal, financial and promotional position. No significant discrepancy has been observed as regards ​​negative reviews: the ratio of 11–73% to 4–27% is comparable to the number of texts devoted to public and private institutions.

Topic

Discourse analysis clearly demonstrates the various nature of content published by the media in question. A vast majority of texts appearing in Szum are critical and informative, Dwutygodnik mostly features interviews, while Nn6T prints shorter texts such as conversations and essays. Intuition suggests that, regardless of their different styles, all three journals should write about the most important events taking place in art field. However, it is only on two occasions that a situation like this occurs, and only in materials dedicated to the same institutions (not specific exhibitions) – the Arsenal Gallery in Białystok and the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw. This may be because of the exclusion of announcements and overviews from this study; however, further research is needed to ascertain the reason for this.

A more general subject matter commonly examined was literature and, more precisely, analyses (or fragments) of exhibition catalogues or art books and, occasionally, interviews with authors. Surprisingly, this type of content constituted as much as 17% (27) of all materials examined.

However, the most popular type of text by far were exhibition reviews and more comprehensive cross‑sectional critical articles discussing systemic problems in the art world and important current phenomena. Another recurrent theme was the commemoration of late art critics or historians of renown.

Authors

Focusing on critics shows some intriguing interdependencies. First of all, the hypothesis about their precarious slipping between functions is partially confirmed – 17% of author‑critics also appear in texts in one of two other roles: curator or artist. This number may seem insignificant but it should be remembered that this is, up to a point at least, down to a relatively short time frame in which the analysed content was published.

A large majority of authors had only one text printed; the minority who published more frequently (28.31%) contributed a larger number of materials in total. Only eight people from this small group published in more than one journal; not one person penned a critical text for all three magazines in 2023.

Gender analysis shows a relative equality in terms of authored texts (79–77), with female authors outnumbering male ones by more than 20. This is directly linked to the “over‑representation” of men in editorial teams and among their permanent collaborators, a situation characteristic of the entire cultural sector with high feminization of the workforce but few women in prestigious and managerial positions.³⁰

Warsaw’s hegemony discussed earlier is also observable in authors’ affiliations³¹ – as many as 56% (51) of them are mostly associated with Warsaw institutions, which translates into 76% (120) of all texts. This picture becomes even sharper when we narrow the analysis to authors who published more than once – within the small group of 28 authors, 22 come from Warsaw which amounts to 88% of all texts (91 out of 103). The obvious fact that the journals in question are located in the capital and their editorial teams mostly include people with long‑term ties with Warsaw should be stressed once more.

Preliminary qualitative analysis

At this point, it is necessary to supplement the data with a preliminary qualitative analysis which allows us to shed light on the language of critical discourse. It mostly corroborates the Warsaw‑centric perspective adopted by critics, treated as somehow default and unquestionable – even shows hosted by national institutions are assessed through the prism of the “institutional or gallery system in the capital” (Sz_B_3).

While this is sometimes a consciously assumed perspective resulting from the critic’s clearly marked location (not necessarily in Warsaw), it still contains a hint of “colonial gaze” that leads to simple generalisations. Exhibitions turn into mini‑institutions, metaphors of locality, as if “being, after all, in Kraków” constituted a reason for reducing everything to a local context (Sz_N_8). Even critics aware of this bias give up: “from the perspective of Warsaw, it is hard not to romanticise all this” (Sz_B_1); the capital’s hegemony clearly resonates in critical language.

This is the right time to pose the question of whether this situation does not result from the contemporary position of criticism which puts – partly as a consequence of practices of institutional criticism – artistic activities in a broader framework and non‑artistic trends. Unsurprisingly, many exhibitions are elucidated within a local frame of reference – Silesian, Krakowian or Kashubian, which opens up a rather easy opportunity for contextualising and offering an interpretation readily accessible to a vast nationwide audience. This becomes particularly noticeable in the material under discussion as, despite the significant over‑representation of galleries and museums based in the capital, the only truly “local” institution is the Museum of Warsaw. Entering broader critical discourse facilitates a discussion centred on the city which – in accordance with the content of exhibitions – becomes a theme in its own right, rather than being an interpretative burden.

However, this problem is not acknowledged in critical texts which are also free of self‑critical reflection that this article is about. Surprisingly so, as questions related to the sociology and economics of the arts do appear on the pages of all three magazines. They are rarely the central theme (3); instead, they provide a background and context for articles devoted to competitions, institutions, or even reviews. Yet they never go back to discussing criticism – its position, significance and function.

Power and dominance

While critics seem to shun the problem of critique and domination in discourse, they are undoubtedly involved in a discussion that creates – or reproduces – inequalities. The analysis of criticism clearly highlights the relations of power and dominance. Warsaw is central and also in charge of the discourse concerning Poland’s entire institutional and gallery system; to put it bluntly, the media in question are – with varying intensity – Warsaw‑centric.

Obviously, the reasons for this state of affairs are many and complex. The first has already been named – it is no accident that Warsaw‑based journals were selected, and they were naturally (geographically, personally, temporally) inclined to address local issues. It is for this reason, too, that small exhibitions, galleries and institutions in Warsaw have a better chance to find their way into critical discourse than their counterparts from the “provinces.” For the same reason, critical texts about the rest of Poland are more likely to concern large public institutions or major events which can afford to stage noticeable shows and spend a lot of money, for instance, on publicity.

The results of this study also pose important questions about the actual position of Polish criticism: how much agency and dominance does it have, to what extent does it provide a faithful reflection of what is going on in the art world? After all, the fact that numerous central institutions with access to public funds for visual arts as well as art galleries with a strong position in the artistic community and finance‑wise are concentrated in Warsaw constitutes the circumstances in which criticism must function. Moreover, large centres have the potential to suck the rest of the country dry not only of artists,³² but academics, journalists and capital as well – in each of these areas Warsaw holds a dominant position.

At the same time, it cannot be denied that critical media not only fail to undermine but actually legitimise inequalities in the art world – the flow of (economic) capital, people (attraction of large centres), resources (the presence of central institutions). The gender perspective also reveals that critical discourse remains a reflection of the entire sector, reproducing the existing order. Importantly, all this means that the dominant position of the journals under discussion remains unchallenged. This does not, regrettably, appear to be a self‑aware practice; the discourse continues to be largely one‑sided and homogeneous, and the legacy of institutional critique fails to assume the form of self‑critique.

These results should provide an impulse for further research on contemporary criticism in Poland. An analysis of the entire discourse, not limited to strictly theoretical and critical forms, would be beneficial; “ordinary” announcements and passing mentions in the main media may be equally important when it comes to access to the resource that visibility is. The scope of analysis needs to be extended to include new media which have been playing an increasingly important role in artistic discourse for some years now. But first of all, it is necessary to include the perspective of other centres in the study – otherwise, they will remain outside the mainstream of (the research on) criticism.