Art criticism is on life support. What we get now are rewrites of press releases padded with compliments. No sharp edges. No risk. No opinion worth debating. Just noise dressed up as insight.
Critics have become part of the PR chain. Scared to offend, eager to be included. Everyone wants access—no one wants to alienate a gallery, a collector, a biennale committee. So we get safe takes, glowing profiles, tired language. No one’s naming the rot.
The worst part? We’ve normalised it. We’ve started to believe that criticism means celebration. That to engage deeply with a work means to praise it. It doesn’t. Real criticism challenges. It puts pressure. It asks more from the artist and the viewer. It makes the work stronger, not weaker.
And yes—when done right, constructive criticism can work wonders. It doesn’t have to be cruel. But it does have to be honest. Clear. Precise. You want to support the artist? Then respect them enough to be direct. They don’t need cheerleaders. They need mirrors.
The art world needs disagreement. Tension. Friction. That’s where ideas sharpen. That’s where clarity comes. But right now, we’re drowning in consensus. It’s boring. It’s dishonest.
If everyone’s in agreement, someone’s lying.
Bring back criticism that cuts. That risks being wrong. That doesn’t care about dinner invites. Let the work stand or fall under real scrutiny. That’s how you keep the ecosystem alive.