What can an art magazine do?(EDITORIAL)

Since this issue is my last as editor of C, it seems natural to ask what exactly I have been doing these past four-and-a-half years. Having been the editor of two art publications (C Magazine [(2004-2008)] and the now obscure MIX Magazine [(2001-2002)] what do I now believe an art magazine can do?

Because contemporary art as a discipline promulgates a specialized kind of language, perhaps a better way to phrase this question is: what does language do for art? Anyone familiar with art history knows that this question is seminal. In a number of significant ways art is its language. Many notable artists have dedicated their work to making this idea explicit: from Marcel Duchamp to Joseph Kosuth to Lawrence Weiner to Art & Language. And for all significant instances of contemporary art, to practice art is to make a proposition about art, with language as its vehicle.

I want to look at this condition from a publication-specific angle. The question 'What can an art magazine do for art?' breaks down into two parts: one focusing on the type of language customarily used by writers about art; and the other, on the claims made for art--in general, and for specific artworks--that writers writing about art tend to make.

In terms of the type of language art criticism uses, I confess to being a skeptic. Of necessity, art criticism borrows from a number of academic disciplines--especially philosophy--because the most effective artworks have deep philosophical implications; but, like any specialized language meant to bestow authority on its user, theoretical language often indulges in obfuscation for its own sake.

In the previous issue of C, Earl Miller ruminated on this subject ("The State of Art Criticism and Critical Theory," C100, Winter 2008). As a working art critic, Miller is well-placed to assess and clearly articulate the shortcomings of his chosen profession. The only thing I would add is that my own antipathy to 'artspeak,' to theoretical writing, stems from the occupational hazard of having to edit it; more often than not, the application of theory to the consideration of artworks makes for bad writing.

However, a topic for which I do have an affinity is the claims of significance that art writing can make for art. Along with bad writing, prescriptions for 'art' are something I've indulged in my career, such as it is, as an art critic. Without the opportunity to affirm faith in the idea that art exists somehow as a living entity, and is therefore animated by a purpose, art magazines would be left with merely descriptive art reviews, and these are only of ephemeral, journalistic interest at best.

For examples of what I am talking about, this issue of C ...