A belated note of appreciation to acknowledge all the contributions to ‘Environmental Audit’s attention to the processes of exhibition review. I must note that I was not responding to John McDonald’s review. Rather, I was reflecting on your need to contain the potential scope of the project given the time and energy available.

As you deliberated about what could still be covered, while allowing space for new issues to arise, I needed to put my hand up and stress that the issue of reviewing should not be left out. This is because, as you have stated, the broader philosophical question of how value is ascribed to human endeavours underpins all your auditing activities.

Also, while the presentation of exhibitions is related to, it is not the same as vital activities such as specific art projects, participatory actions and campaigns which Catriona refers to. Exhibitions have their own protocols for reviewing which are interweave all gallery-sited relationships. I have appreciated the opportunity to think about how these inherited ‘auditing’ processes relate to emerging approaches to evaluation and assessment of which Environmental Audit is an expression.

Jasmin

However, I googled around and found the following. Catriona and Jasmin, here are a few more reviews of the show for your perusal:

To Keep Your Balance You Must Keep Moving by Elliot Shields

In The Balance by Genevieve Barry

thanks for your considered thoughts. I hope to come back to you soon when I get a sec for deeper reflection – but just off the cuff, it does strike me that a lot of the discussion about “green” art echoes the debates surrounding the quality (aesthetic value, instrumental effectiveness) of so-called “political” art.

Here is that article. It’s a pdf version.

Nonetheless, I like Jasmine’s generous comments about how shows like ‘In the Balance’ might help us reconfigure our criteria for judging environmentalist art…. let’s face it, eco-art has been around for nearly half a century, & of course, much longer when you consider Indigenous and western landscape traditions. Yet, while many Australian audiences now appreciate contemporary art that integrates instrumental and affective realms (burning-off and dancing, for instance; or art projects incorporating scientific tabulation, weeding, painting and singing), art criticism has found it hard to reconcile seemingly ‘instrumental’ outcomes with our traditional aesthetic vocabulary.

I haven’t read John MacDonald’s review, but I value thoughtful critical judgement and, let’s face it, it’s really difficult to critically evaluate eco-art. Like motherhood, it is both ubiquitous and automatically considered to be a good thing. At its worst, however, eco-aesthetics has excused scores of banal, greening-the-mall public art projects. It has also coloured elegant but insipid gallery installations a topical green, and helped to sell shoddy work on the Indigenous art market. Unfortunately art history and criticism have often added to this anaerobic compost heap. That’s why Jasmine’s comments re valuing creatively ‘green’ art historical and aesthetic responses make so much sense.

For me, the most interesting dimension of ITB was precisely its attempt to generate such affective and instrumental connections. eg. gallery work making activist connections, or at least documenting their history. It was a start, though a bit fragmented, perhaps.

In museums like the MCA, it’s largely been Indigenous artists and curators who have helped the gallery system remain politically relevant as a platform for ecological communication. For instance, touring shows like ‘Saltwater’ fully exploited the aesthetic power of formal gallery installations and the cultural power of the museum sector to educate and authorise connections between indigenous art, custodianship, land and sea rights. They have done this through connecting the high-end, aesthetic hang with community based art production, land custodianship and the political realm of environmental decision-making. It’s a case where beautiful artworks, cleverly curated, pay political dividends in the green audit.

With this in mind (without wanting to sound like a John MacDonald apologist) I disagree with those (largely Euramerican) ‘deep green’ critics who’d wipe traditional western aesthetics to create a ‘clean and green slate’. Jasmine’s comments remind us that there can be no a priori ‘green critical framework’. It’s about strategic “ranking” (Jasmine’s term) and connecting a variety of criteria, in tandem with specific art projects, participatory actions and campaigns.

I have made a start but please keep in mind that I won’t get to see the show …… ‘Environmental Audit’ has really highlighted for me how the kinds of criteria used to evaluate exhibitions is expanding and that this question is being more widely explored by the art world. The environmental implications of an exhibition joins a growing list of concerns such as its aesthetic attainment, attendance, the maturing of its artists, and its contribution to institutional capacity building.

Historically, everyone was expected to apply the same criteria as the exhibition reviewers and people were much more deferential to them. Today the regard that reviewers enjoy follows on from their demonstrated leadership of the conversations around art. Now that the types of people who exhibit in, visit and contribute to galleries is so much more diverse, we can no longer assume that everyone is using the same criteria to determine the value of an exhibition. Some criteria are also much more useful in some situations than others and new approaches to presenting exhibitions are generating different requirements for criticism, commentary and review.

When exercising judgement you have to acknowledge the factors being taken into consideration. This approach is not only more inclusive and civil but by scrutinising the evaluative process one is honing one’s assessment. I note, for example, that the banner on your blog has some links related to ‘blogging as art’ that provide background for readers about what you value as a participating artist.

Of course, the perspectives and techniques that are used to assess an exhibition, are not necessarily complementary and how you rank them says a lot about who you are. Perhaps then, in the terms of your blog, an exhibition might be accorded particular ‘value’ if it engages a reviewer or other exhibition participants to think about the way they configure their particular set of criteria?

Jasmin

I have been mulling this over myself, since the John McDonald review in the Herald last weekend. Your comment spurs me to tackle it as a specific focus, which I’ll do when I get a moment.

In the neo-capitalist spirit of the auditor ‘outsourcing’ some of this work (given that i’m a bit stretched) – would you like to kick us off? Do you have any thoughts yourself about the McDonald review – or other media reviews you might have seen so far?

This ‘Audit’ really is gaining some traction!

I’m enjoying the relationships between drawing and thinking which all the scribbling associated with ‘Environmental Audit’ is generating. I can see why you need the latest diagrams to provide some focus in what has become a deep and wide project. I am wondering how much consideration you have given to the exhibition reviews, however. After all, in art world terms, reviewers are the original ‘auditors’. The blog is headed ‘resources used’ and ‘cultural good?’ and your audit methodology does incorporate outside ‘specialists’.

I appreciate that most reviews and potentially the most reflective will be published after your tenure concludes but in your second diagram you do point to questions concerning the ‘value of the exhibition’.

Jasmin