One change I've noted in art reviews over the years is that critics will often forgo judging the art in favor of describing it on its own terms. One reason for this change may be that art is so eclectic today. There is no single school or style in ascendancy.
There is also no universal authority on what is good or bad art, but rather arguments being made for the value of a particular artist's work within the parameters of what that artist is trying to accomplish. Yet critics have personal tastes, and will naturally tend to promote the art they love and dismiss what they consider trivial.
One of the tools many critics use is context. They attempt to place the art within its cultural history, explaining the influences it has come out of and relating it to other contemporaries working in a similar mode. If an artist is making folk-art, for example, the work needs to be discussed in that context, not compared to a video installation.
I know that I am absolutely prejudiced in favor of non-objective abstract art, because it's the kind of art I make and have a continuing relationship with. I tend to look at all art from this perspective, noting its painterly effects, the interest of its surface, the movement and composition, its force, energy, and so forth.
I have no aspirations to be an art critic, especially knowing how prejudiced I am toward abstract art. I can appreciate other art for its craftsmanship, cleverness or emotional impact, but I tend to always judge first by squinting to check out the composition.
Another aspect of art reviewing is audience. When writing for a national or international art publication, critics will be considering the value of the art based on a larger playing field than a writer for a regional or small city publication. Yet even in a small city, some of the artists who live there may be as serious about their work as an artist competing in New York City or London. They may appreciate a reviewer who can put their work in a larger context. The reader of a small newspaper, however, may simply want to know what a local show is about, and in that case a descriptive review would be more helpful than a judgmental one.
If one has to choose between looking at more art or reading more art reviews, I vote for looking at more art. I think we will learn more through our visual processing of the art, and the words to describe this experience can come later.
