Criteria for Criticism: Whitney Biennial and Armory

Asking a question

I began by posing a specific question to be answered. In this way viewing the exhibition becomes a form of investigation. I was looking for works that answer my question.

At the Whitney Biennial my questions were: “Is post modernism over? and “If it is over, what does today’s art look like as presented by this exhibition?”

At the Armory show my questions were: “What is the difference between modern and postmodern? Is there something new developing? What is contemporary as presented by the galleries at the armory show? How much influence does postmodernism still have on contemporary work? What artists are working in a new way, an “altermodern” way?”

A theory to be proved

The question took the form of a theory to be proved or disproved. My focus was biased in that I was looking for something specific.

Individual examples

I chose to focus on a select number of specific works to answer my questions and support my theories. While I did get an overview of the exhibitions so that I had a larger context for my writing I found that with the massive scale of the exhibitions it was helpful to find individual works to focus on to support my ideas. By describing and analyzing their work in relation to the ideas I was presenting I was able to give specific reasons that answered my questions or supported my arguments.

Historic and theoretic context

I tried to place my ideas within the historical context of 20th and 21st century art, briefly describing and defining the movements I was referring to. I used those definition to support my claims.