Notes on Distance and Proximity

“We all write from somewhere” - Jeremy Millar’s workshop prompted us to think about where we sit in relation to a subject, as well as how we relate to it. The following text traces a string of thoughts prompted by key discussions in the session, centered around positionality and relationality.

***

The triangulation between the artwork, the artist, and oneself (the critic/writer) is the foundational form, where creating criticism is concerned. It is the basis from which a network of relationships and ideas germinates.

The emerging network knows no bounds. It is ever-growing and capable of encompassing myriad contextual concerns – those of the public, the more-than-human, the social, material, and imaginary worlds. It can sprawl and get wieldy, tangle, and never get tired. So, writing criticism (good criticism) entails grappling with this network, and being deft about it.

Some nodes are hotter than others. And different artworks encourage different relationships to be brokered. It is the critic’s job then, perhaps, to sense the heat with their palms. Whether as an interlocutor or a mover shaker, the critic’s role is always an active one. Skilled at writing very good introductory emails saying, ‘I think you two should talk’. (Bcc: Relational Aesthetics).

I think about my favourite examples that form this triangle:

The artwork - the artist: Judith Scott, wrapping her arms around her sculptures.

The artist - the critic: Hans Ulrich Obrist and Tacita Dean in conversation.

The critic - the artwork: Dean Kissick on the rise of Bad Figurative Painting.

The onus is on keeping the network live, facilitating a jostle of dialogue, and keeping an eye on what is generated by the friction.

Back to the pinboard. The critic operates at the apex, transforming the line into a shape and holding a space open. So long as there’s room to move, the possibilities are endless.

Having wrapped the connecting thread around two pins, and pulled it taught, only the critic can make visible the nature of the connection. A trip wire or a lifeline? Whether prompted by logic, luck, happenstance, or art-historical tradition – the nature of the connection determines not only the critic’s positionality but the reader's too. Whose ear is pressed to whose heartbeat?

When we talk about critical distance and proximity, what if the unit of measurement that counted was not the distance/proximity between the critic and the object of criticism, but rather, the distance/proximity between the object of criticism and the reader?

A gallery’s ticket system and museum’s hourly slot. If we had time, I might take it back to Hegel. The man to have surpassed Kant’s critical detachment. What would he have made of a plexiglass barrier, a fence of alarmed wire, a frame with a bulletproof glaze? Would they have got in the way of immanent critique? Toying with proximity until the obstructions are rendered obsolete. Is it possible to doomscroll past the vanishing point?

I remember a discussion around a table at Frieze:

‘But what is the central tenet of good criticism?’ someone asked.
‘Generosity,’ everyone concurred. ‘Or at the very least, good faith.’

The good faith to not punch down, the good faith not to plagiarise… but what about the good faith to bring the reader so close to the work that they might butterfly kiss it with their eyelashes? Might this be the ultimate act of generosity? Proximity’s goal? The only acceptable safe distance?

Positionality is not something you fall into – there is no default. It can't be formed on its own by the critic as an individual, nor can it exist in a vacuum, for relationality is part and parcel. What if measuring positionality linearly, via the length of the line between the critic and the artwork was a mistake? What if we thought of it as best assessed by the dimensions of the shape that is formed by admitting additional agents into the artist-artwork-critic configuration. More apexes, more nodes. This way, even if the critic is so-very-close to the artwork, the possibility prevails of opening up space some other way, so that the reader can invite themselves in and take a look around.

***

References:

Dean Kissick, ‘The Rise of Bad Figurative Painting’, The Spectator, 30 January 2021 <https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-of-bad-figurative-painting/> [accessed 17 February 2024].

‘Judith Scott’ <https://christianberst.com/en/artists/judith-scott> [accessed 14th February 2024]

Tacita Dean, Hans Ulrich Obrist, Tacita Dean / Hans Ulrich Obrist, The Conversation Series, 28 (Cologne: Walther Koenig, 2012).