One of the reasons why it is increasingly difficult to find negative reviews or critiques of any cultural product is the fear of consequences, of possible retaliation. The sampling is vast: one can start with reactions of lesser intensity, such as critical responses or buffeting by social media: the great classic, for example, is the accusation of having written out of envy, if not out of some form of social resentment. Then there are the consequences of medium tenor: the possibility of toying with invitations somewhere, elimination from some mailing list, the enraged phone call from the press office, attacks on one’s reputation, haranguing by friends or supporters of the reviewed subject, indirect discrediting, i.e., “bad-mouthing” those who crush in the private of cultural circuits. It can often happen to come across accusations by those who believe that behind the negative review is hidden an instrumental attack on some administration, as if the writer of art was interested in local politics or knew in detail the situation in each city (and, of course, was moreover always on the side of the opposition). And one arrives at the most serious consequences, for example the interruption of a collaboration, the possibility of gambling future collaborations (and thus cutting off sources of livelihood) or intimidation, the threat of lawsuits and assorted legal actions. In rare cases, it may even happen to be harassed in person. Add to this the fact that the size of the art sector is fatally small and that economic powers are rather concentrated, a circumstance that to most suggests an at least guarded attitude on the scale ranging from the reckless-soldier-kamikaze who has nothing to lose, to the professional flatterer always ready to barter his dignity for a gallery dinner or an exclusive preview .
Then there are those who accuse the critic of even taking a certain enjoyment in crushing exhibitions. As if writing a critical review were some kind of sadistic amusement: no, for the avoidance of doubt, the critic, at least in most cases, does not get wet when he writes a negative review, unless he is prone to manifest particular, strange paraphilias. It is simply his job. If a masthead tries to give reasoned criticism (and not so much, at least in our case, because one feels invested with who knows what ethical mission: we have not decided to save the world, we have only chosen an editorial line), then the possibility of a critique being published is in the natural order of things, and perhaps not even the most frequent occurrence. I hope that at this point the reader can forgive me the excess of self-referentiality, but a few numbers need to be provided: since the beginning of 2025, this journal has published 42 exhibition reviews, an average of about two a week, and of these only 5 can be included in the genre of “critique” (as far as I am concerned, the balance is 2 out of 7): for the rest, there has been no shortage of more lukewarm reviews, those more negative than positive, those totally positive, with all the nuances that the exercise of one’s critical thinking naturally entails, which is what is required of those who want to write on these pages. Reviewing an exhibition means, after all, to render to the reader an argumentative and evaluative text, and often the evaluation turns out to be good.
Reflecting on the consequences of a negative review is useful to better frame a phenomenon that has been talked about for years, namely the disappearance of criticism. And it is but one of the aspects, and certainly not even the most important one, to discuss the phenomenon (there is also more: precariousness of journalistic work, crisis in publishing, institutionalization of criticism, and so on). It is worth returning to it, however, because often, to those who observe this world from the outside, certain mechanisms may not appear in all their clarity, and one might wonder why it becomes complicated to read a position statement on an exhibition. Of course, then, there are exceptions. The small social profile that posted a ruthless story about the last exhibition visited. The new cultural initiative produced from below. The such-and-such critic who wrote a negative review just because he can’t stand such-and-such artist, or because he really wanted to attack the Olgiate Olona municipal administration. The critic who, like anyone, can make mistakes, be biased, ill-disposed, incompetent. All true: we are not, however, talking about hyperspecialized contexts (niche media aimed at a few enthusiasts, academic criticism), and the existence of particular case histories does not undermine the general trend that is felt in the mainstream of Italian art information.
If an alien happened to be in Italy today and started flipping through some art magazine, some cultural insert of’a daily newspaper, or opened a profile on Instagram and started following the accounts of the most successful influencers and creators, perhaps he might really think that in Italy museums and exhibition spaces do only beautiful things, that everything is wonderful, that our kurators and art historians never miss a beat, that in all cities there are exhibition projects of the highest level. Hardly would the alien think that the situation is simply different, that utilitarianism has replaced critical thinking, and that it is becoming more and more difficult to encounter exhibition critiques (but one could speak of reviews tout court, because if you write a positive review arguing then readers expect that sooner or later a negative review will also come, otherwise you are not credible: to get around the obstacle, you then prefer to avoid the review in any direction) because a substantial part of the public (which, in all this profusion of likes, of attributions of masterpieces, of suggestions of the “ten must-see exhibitions,” is aggrieved party), organizers, and politicians feel in regard to negative reviews a growing annoyance, although there is obviously no lack of those who, on the contrary and fortunately, appreciate reasoned critical content and oppose the anesthetization induced by the marketing of culture with active resistance.
An annoyance that arises because we find it increasingly difficult to distinguish between criticism and personal attack (social media, unfortunately, have not come to our aid, since on social media everything is mixed), because we experience negative reviewing as a bizarre form of disrespect for the work of others, because we are in the age of the palliative society and are afraid of dissent, because we are dominated by the hegemony of cultural marketing that demands good press and not critical reflection (reason why much of what is passed off to you as “review” is usually rinse of self-congratulatory communiqués or, if it goes well, pure description of what you will find in the halls of an exhibition) and therefore we are becoming disaccustomed to reading not so much critiques or negative reviews, but criticism in the strict sense. This is, in very short, much of what is behind a review. And that many do not perceive. Yet the relevance of the visual arts also depends on the survival of a critical scenario and, above all, the survival of a critical debate. Without criticism, the visual arts condemn themselves to marginality. Now, perhaps it is too much to expect an artist to root for those who crush or frame him or her because then he or she would be admitting that he or she still exists as an element of a cultural category and not living on as an inauguration marketing product, but one might at least begin to cultivate theidea that where criticism is robustly argued, a negative review is not the equivalent of a punitive expedition, that if the critic writes it is not because, at least in most cases, he is envious of an artist, a curator, or a mayor, that the person who has argued a critique is usually less than interested in the political dynamics of the vast majority of the cities in which the exhibition he or she reviewed is held, that writing is a job and not an amusement or a form of emotional dilettantism, that for a negative review there are just as many and perhaps even more that are positive instead (and yet do not make headlines or cause discussion, especially when argued: there is already little talk about an argued critique, let alone how much interest a well-dosed positive evaluation can have). In short, reacquaint oneself with the idea that critical discussion is healthy for a field that appears increasingly disconnected from reality.
Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.
