Volume 33.no.1 September / October 2018

In this issue:

Speakeasy with Melanie Manos, our new Detroit editor

We interview one of Bernard Leach’s finest apprentices, John Bedding

Why artists’ fail by Darren Jones in New York

The Autonomies of Art by Clement Greenberg, a lecture given in Virginia.

Clement Greenberg reconsidered by Jane Allen

To the 75,000 Readers of MOMUS magazine by Miklos Legrady, our Toronto editor

Remembering the Futurists by Liviana Martin, our Milan editor

The Editors Discuss David Wojnarowicz

Reviews from Eva in Ireland, Detroit, Velos in Greece, New York, Cornwall, the Seychells and Cologne

Film Review: Frances Oliver on The Square by Robert Östlund


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tamsen Brook
18/10/2018 2:44 am

As a reader of your print magazine and also online, I have noticed how different the feeling is in reading online vs. in print. Online I read all your articles from start to finish, whereas I’m more likely to skim and turn the pages of the New Art Examiner. I am sure this is due to how our reading world has transformed over the last two decades, where online in general we are given only chunks to read at a time, not whole works. I wonder if other readers have noticed this difference. In any case, I would like to… Read more »

Jason Ashton
20/10/2018 1:05 am
Reply to  Tamsen Brook

Hi Tamsen,

I completely agree with you; I find it easier to read just about anything online than in print format. I think it’s due to our shortened attention spans and shrunken brains, though not a problem for the oldies who didn’t have internet or who don’t use it very much.
I only wish there were more images in the New Art Examiner; after all it is an art magazine on the visual arts – visual, meaning, to be seen.

Derek Guthrie
20/10/2018 8:31 am
Reply to  Jason Ashton

We are limited as we have no funds. Unfortunately at this moment in time we, the print media, are eclipsed by social media. I agree with the observation of declining attention span, to flourish the Visual Arts more mature audience will have to develop who can exist outside social media. Certainly, we will add more pages and images when the minimal cash flow increases and people subscribe. Derek Guthrie Co-founder and Publisher

Corey Nin
22/10/2018 10:54 am
Reply to  Derek Guthrie

Hi Derek, Perhaps the New Art Examiner is limited due to its lack of funds, a monetary issue, easily resolved once funding is found through donations and investments, though investments could change the beautiful look and feel that this magazine has. It is truly unique in its presentation. While the New Art Examiner is limited by lack of funds, we readers are limited by our ability to focus on one website at a time, while we are simultaneously checking our social media accounts. This has made so many of us become very superficial individuals in all that we do. We… Read more »

Steve Bridges
08/11/2018 11:59 pm
Reply to  Derek Guthrie

Hi Derek, After reading the article “You Already Email Like a Robot — Why Not Automate It?” from the NY Times on how, thanks to Smart Compose, parts of our emails now can be suggested and just clicked in as a more advanced form of automated communication, I was left feeling that our brains are getting more and more useless. It also made me think that further down the road art critics could just type in a few key words about a review of an exhibit and a more sophisticated Smart Compose could suggest the entire article. It could be… Read more »

Hal Davis
11/11/2018 4:29 am
Reply to  Steve Bridges

Hi Steve, I’m sorry to say, but automated article writing software already exists, and it is exactly as you say. The user writes in a few words, and in 30 seconds a well written and unique article will be displayed. Watch the video; it is more than shocking. http://www.articleforge.com/ It means that our brains could become ever more useless if there is artificial intelligence software that can do all the thinking for us. This art magazine could use it and no longer need writers. The implications on its use are immense, though perhaps this technology is already widely being used;… Read more »

Paul Styles
11/11/2018 2:41 pm
Reply to  Hal Davis

It is a sad, sad world that comes to this, believing that it is an improvement to our lives, or even necessary (to control us). If you think otherwise, go and get your digital implant and be happily controlled by your local government.
Whatever will happen to artists; will they too be fully automated? Are the visual arts a conception of humans or will this conception be changed to the perspective of artificial intelligence? Does artificial intelligence have a perspective?

Juan Lu
12/11/2018 1:24 am
Reply to  Hal Davis

I watched the video, I tried the software, and oh dear, oh dear, it works. I’m not saying it wrote what I had in mind, that is if I still do indeed have a mind, but it did come up with a decent article on Mondrian that could be published. Even more disturbing is the fact that it can produce 1,000 different articles on the same topic in just a few seconds, something I didn’t try, but they suggest using these 1,000 articles to fill up a website or blog. If already our web is inundated with the most useless… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x