NOTES ON WRITING EXHIBITION REVIEWS

JUDY RADUL
NOV. 2000

What is most important is that you write a response which is appropriate to the art you are speaking about. Of course, giving the reader certain information before other points are made makes more sense— for instance a physical description of the work should come before interpretive points, which rely on a knowledge of the physical description of the work.

Remember: reviews are relatively short, make every word count, choose your adjectives and adverbs with great specificity and economy. For example think of the different connotations which arise if you describe a way of working as “traditional” rather than “common” or “usual”. Don’t fall into banality, be interested in the work. You do not have to be “objective” — the reader understands you are putting forth your own opinion—choosing to write about a specific exhibition already indicates a certain investment in it. You should, however, be as informed as possible about the artist, the contemporary and historical art context, the specifics of the work (its topics and particular cultural/social/historical/material references) and the curator and gallery (if this is relevant). Talking to the artist or curator directly is how a majority of reviewers glean important information—however their opinions/intentions are not “the truth” or necessarily more authoritative than your own. Be prepared to spend some time at the gallery, take notes, make sketches, ask for reproductions if they are available, ask if you can take some photographs if you want to refer to these while writing.



Local Context (start your review with some inclusion of Name of Exhibition, Name of Artist, Name of Curator, Location of Exhibition)

“The Sydney art world is notoriously factionalized and combative....For outsiders or new arrivals this generally bitchy atmosphere is both surprising and highly entertaining. It was inevitable that when Anthony Bond, Head Curator of Western Art at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, opened his long-awaited “BODY” exhibition, it would be met with a response colored by entrenched histories of antagonism and partisanship...” ( David McNeill, Body, Art/Text 60, 1998)

(Physical) description of the work: this doesn’t have to exclude all other descriptive/interpretive language but forefronts a relatively basic description of the art, rather than conceptual interpretation,




Observations, assessments, critiques of the work : the review need not be uniformly “positive” or “negative” in fact the aspect of “judgment” or assessing the “success” of the work might be secondary to a more general outlining or interpretation of the project or aims of the artist. .