Saul Steinberg, “Untitled” (1944) (image via

In his final column for Frieze, writer, painter and star curator Robert Storr calls art writers (himself included) “bottom feeders,” and constructs an elaborate metaphor for writers as the “squid” of the art world — swimming in their own ink. This is the “cruel, Darwinian truth,” says Storr, yet the goodbye column is also a note of support for writers and writing.

Storr has worked in part as an art writer for the past 30 years, and has written his Frieze column since 2004. In a consideration of the place of art writing in the art world ecosystem, he writes, “in the hierarchies of power, critics – like squid – are agile bottom feeders.” His reasoning for the description? Art writing has been squeezed top and bottom from two sources, namely pretentious academic writing on high, and commercial PR babble at the low end. The few spots in between are mercilessly protected while resulting in only that most “ephemeral” of rewards: influence, or getting a word in to the overall conversation.

Storr writes,

Being part of the dialogue is what drives us; figuring out how to give our ideas weight and our words bounce is the political, intellectual and literary challenge confronting us whenever we set to work.

Though art writers might be bottom feeders in a sense, scuttling around for tidbits falling from higher up the food chain, I’d prefer to think of it like muck-raking — continuously thinking, looking and investigating into the changing idea of art, from the bottom up. I think Storr understands this too, otherwise, I don’t expect he’d bother to write about art.

It’s worth thinking about, though. Considering the ever-weakening power of critics in an era of artist branding and massive blue-chip gallery markets, what role does the art critic or the art writer play? It’s clear that critics and writers no longer hold the responsibility of interpreting art for the unwashed masses. Jerry Saltz, probably the most visible contemporary art critic today, is a kind of cheerleader for artistic experience, like Anthony Bourdain is for food. Peter Schjeldahl is a mandarin who preaches from a pulpit. Storr is a whole other animal, a polymath who creates shows as much as he writes about them.

So do writers need to be art world dynamos? Or art reporters? Or cheerleaders? These are the questions art writers have to ask themselves. I’m not sure where I stand yet, but it’s good to hear Storr’s take.

The Latest

Kyle Chayka

Kyle Chayka was senior editor at Hyperallergic. He is a cultural critic based in Brooklyn and has contributed to publications including ARTINFO, ARTnews, Modern Painters, LA Weekly,...

7 replies on “Robert Storr: Art Writers Are “Bottom Feeders””

  1. nicolas bourriaud said in a introduction to altermodern that when he has questions he is curating a show and when her has answers he is writing a book. I like this image of a curator/critic directly engaging with the art world until s/he has something important to say. Nice article

  2. Nicholas Bourriaud curates shows when he has OPM and writes books in order to secure OPM. Has he had something important to say, yet? As near as I can see, he perceives criticism as an exercise in brand management. I don’t think that’s what Storr’s column is about, but it could be.

    1. Bourriaud definitely seems like he’s trying to create genres or movements to be associated with… I see Storr as more of a working, thinking critic. I like Ben’s quote, though. Exhibitions do raise questions, and it’s impossible to pose a complex answer through curating alone.

  3. How much original art content is produced through criticism? The occasional turn of phrase or maybe a new frame for a body of work, but yeah, critics are responders not leaders.

    1. I think if you do it right the relationship is more symbiotic than the leader image you’re suggesting. I really believe that no great art scene can emerge without great art writing, criticism, theory, etc.

      1. That’s kind of why I agree with the “bottom feeder” remark. I don’t think it’s meant to be negative, I think it’s meant in the way that art writing connects disparate elements, people, ideas from the ground up. It might not be “original content”, but it is the threads that tie things together.

  4. Completely agree that it does tie things together and can help some local art scene gain wider notice, but I agree with Storr’s basic point. Art writing, usually done in response to some ¢a$h wielding editor, relies on other people making things happen so you can respond.

    And to make sure that I’m understood, responsive criticism and bottom feeding plays an important role in the art ecosystem. I write reviews because I believe in the function it plays.

    We also shouldn’t confuse the difference between reviews, art reporting (gossip or more serious content), and theory. They’re not the same thing at all and have different roles in the ecosystem.

Comments are closed.