art (and why not, politics) is less about seeing and more about building "perceptions."
at mbourbaki we make a distinction between plain seeing -physiological & epistemic for using your eyes- and "perception," a market category.
market category? you would ask. the market-as-world created by the market. it's here that old categories begin to implode.
can one say today that there is really "seeing" without arthoodication?
how is information processed? information is dimensionless, it doesn't depend upon a particular measure. one would think that the more informed one is the better one's predictive power. but this is not the case, which brings us to a pervasive redundancy:
check out how this art's service provides advice to future writers. the post is entitled "how to pitch an exhibition review to a magazine."
(...) you may have been thinking about introducing new elements into your art career: curating, teaching, marketing, assisting, installing or documenting exhibitions, scholarly work, or even coaching. If thinking critically is your thing – and you’re passionate about communicating those thoughts to others – I’m guessing that writing about art for magazines is near the top of your expanded to-do list.
the writer groups "critical thinking" & "communicating." the former is a buzzword. isn't "critical thinking" thinking? are you telling me that "thinking" was not -or never- "critical" before discovering it? in other words, "thinking" becomes "critical" when it discovers it (as if you become smart when you think it). bunk.
what the "critical thinking" booster does is to give a hand to "communicating," a new mode of art-perception that we call artblicity. now you're ready for this genuine legerdemain:
It’s not always necessary –or possible– to visit an exhibition before pitching a review. You can often glean themes, curatorial statements, and helpful images from the artist, gallery, or museum’s website. As a rough guide, write a 50-word pitch covering the show’s title, dates, and location, and outline your approach to the review. Mention any theories, art historical comparisons, or other elements you’ll draw out. By keeping the pitch concise and organised, you’ll show the editor that you can write, and that you’re aware of what she’s looking for. I tend also to include a 50-word biography tailored to the magazine’s style, which may include my educational background, current research interests or experience relevant to the review at hand, and location.first, reviewing an exhibit without the actual in situ presence of the writer, amounts to a phenomenon of artblicity/telepathy called critics' picks. a questionable practice that subordinates "seeing" to "communicating." next, the writer's "mention any theories" admonition really means "any art/platitude buttressed by pseudo-theoretical comparisons will pass the smell test."
this is the artmarket's new modus operandus: artblicity propagated as normal.