Is art criticism dead the way painting was supposed to be ten years ago?
Is art criticism helpful anymore in the age of Yelp?
Is it allowed to critique criticism?
Is a bad review helpful to anyone?
Is genuine criticism best left for the artist studio?
In a group show, why are certain artists written about and not others?
How does a jumble of words and feelings about colors become coherent?
Should every gallery simply have a Yelp page and invite visitors to comment?
How many people can write about art history with any authority?
Is studying art history useless?
Can most people who write on art distinguish between postmodernism and modernism?
Is it true you need to be good looking, or at least have good hair, to get reviewed?
Is art writing literature?
Does anybody read art reviews except galleries, artists, and dealers?
Should curators be considered friends or enemies?
Is reviewing art shows a concept that is collapsing in on itself?
Can anybody write art criticism?
Is it OK to write a review based on the images on a gallery website, never having visited the actual show?
Is there a way to get rich writing about art?
Should every gallery simply have its own Yelp page?
Are comments sections the scourge of humanity?
Does it seem like male artists get reviewed a whole lot more than female artists?
Was there ever objective criteria for assessing whether a work of art is any good or not?
Is art/an artist good simply because he/she/it gets reviewed?
Is the “painting is dead/painting is alive” dialectic over yet?
What happens to art critics as they age if they don’t write a novel or something?
Do art publications provide a pension? Medical care? Dental insurance?
Do people really take classes on how to write art criticism?
If you can study creative writing, can you also study uncreative writing?
Why are some artists written about and some are not?
Do poets naturally write better art criticism?