From Art-Criticism to PR-ism, What Gives?

Laurie Simmons. Walking Gun, 1991. Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

By ANNA MIKAELA EKSTRAND November 2, 2024

I want to be bold and talk about PR-ism instead of art criticism. Many art writers are engaging in editorial-style interviews, activist-leaning op-eds, news spoon-feed from a publicist, and favorable reviews in publications—and writing copy, editing, and the odd essay or press release behind the scenes. PR-ism. So let’s not be afraid to break it all down and discuss, if not in the open at the very least within our work circles of editors at publications, PR-people, and artists/galleries/institutions. 

Entrepreneurship news and art coverage seem to have many similarities. Start-up CEO’s and founders are interviewed in a wide range of outlets—often pay-for-play—and these articles are leveraged for more than reaching the public, usually to garner more investors or build credibility in-network—conferences, prospective employees, and more. In the art world, press coverage is used as a tool for gallerists to lift their artists to make sales. To further their livelihoods. In both instances, stakeholders (companies or galleries) are adamant about getting good press and often pay PR people (like myself) to help them. When I do PR I like paying both writers and outlets from my PR fee—don’t be alarmed, I like to think that leaning into PR-ism will also benefit art criticism.

After reading Emily Colucci's remark that Filthy Dreams has never made money,  the only source of incoming funds being one Andy Warhol grant—which given the longevity of the platform amounts to more clout than financial support, and certainly not financial sustainability—I thought: its hard to stay true. Separating the platform and its content from her paying job, as a freelance consulting writer is critical, giving her, in her own words: “the freedom to do whatever I want. And that, to me, is everything.” She sees her platform as a hobby. Colucci shared these ideas at a roundtable organized by CULTURED and written up by Julia Halperin titled, “Art Criticism Is in Crisis. These Three Writers Aren’t Giving Up,” which says it all—it is near impossible to maintain financial viability as a full-time art critic, which impacts art criticism. In Colucci’s case it is in a good way. Same goes with Sean Tatol of The Manhattan Art Review and Jerry Gogosian—who also run their own platforms who remain critical.

Even with an alternate source of income art critics must maintain their position in the field, which can be difficult if they engage in unfavorable critique. I would say that only certain outlets (the really big ones like daily papers or niche ones, like Filthy Dreams) really engage in publishing critical critique because they are untouchable or because they do not fear the consequences. If the biggest problem in criticism is that writing is financially unsustainable and writers fear penning a scathing review, should they not be reaping more from PR budgets? When an institution or gallery pays a price of $5-$15K for PR, leading to say 3-7 articles, It should be industry standard to be able to pay certain outlets a cut for them to pay their writer and editor a better fee. To pay a PR person to pitch a writer who nearly exclusively works with stories suggested to them by PR agents and agencies is paying for press. Writers are just getting paid the least. Arts media is in crisis but getting press placements is important for the ballooning art market—PR people need to start advocating for writers who are already engaging in editorial-style writing. Influencers get paid to promote products, writers can too. Money is there. How can this relationship be developed?

This leads to the next consideration, that art criticism (or art writing) has become increasingly celebratory, fluff-centric, or fluff-adjacent. It is true. I have worked with over 80 writers and I currently have one anonymous writer writing negative critique on a semi-regular basis—it took me years to find them. I write something scathing every now and then. It’s my publication so I am in a privileged position. Other writers I have asked politely decline—hypothetically, it isn’t worth pissing people off to run the risk of exclusion from certain circles to write a bad review, besides there is just so much to write about, why write something bad? Valid. Gallerists, artists, and museum staff do better—a bad review is not career-ending, appreciate that a writer took the time to delve into a topic, consider it, and identify its flaws creating discussions for the wider public. Do not bully writers if you do not agree with them. The current state of criticism is really not the fault of individual writers, we can all do our part to change it. Positive critique is not bad per se, and sometimes it is imperative—for immigrant artists collecting material for their O1-visas for instance—we just need more variation.

Writing this I am unsure if it is the right decision and when I speak about the state of art criticism, arts media, arts writing overall, and its interconnection with PR, PR-ism, I sometimes get a clump in my stomach. Am I doing something wrong? Do I run the risk of being shunned by prospective PR clients and outlets I pitch to as a writer? But then I deal with larger outlets who charge for ad placements in exchange for coverage or who do not pay their writers at all and I stand fast in my conviction: we need to carve out more space for writers to exist. Going rates for articles in Forbes, Maxim, and Vogue start at $5K and are sometimes negotiated by third party companies. How much of that do writers see? Many writers I email say that they do not work with advertorials at all—sometimes editors charge premium advertorial fees unbeknownst to the writer (and sometimes writers charge unbeknownst to the outlet). I always ask and inform writers and pay the higher fees for advertorials. As writers, editors, and PR-people we need to talk candidly to each other. Importantly, I applaud those writers who stick with it and are writing for major and minor publications, or their own platforms. Thank you.

I do not want to be working in the shadows or the underbelly of journalism or art criticism for that matter. I want to see writers paid, outlets making more money, and PR people budgeting writer fees where there are little or none, especially if there are none. Editorials, favors, friends, and cash live among us, I say, embrace them and help artists whose livelihood they support to make more space for critique, researched stories, and opinions. Writers should not feel the need to write favorably or not at all. WM