Rotterdam Dialogues The Critics I'd like to respond to Thomas Berghuis' latest entry 'Time will Tell', in which he asks 'Do we need art critics to establish a dialogue about contemporary art? -- The recent forum at de Witte de With in Rotterdam may provide some answers (see: http://www.wdw.nl/project.php?id=183). I am hoping to hear/read more.'

Rich Streitmatter-Tran and I both took part at this symposium. Rich took part at discussionpanel in day 3: 'What can D-I-Y Criticism offer?' I was the host for the day 2: Positions, outlining the theme of the programm and responding to the various contributions during the day. As a first response to Berghuis' request, I'd like to post my introduction talk which relates a lot to some questions Thomas Berghuis posed, hoping it will provoke others to join in!

Finally I got some time to respond, including my initial thoughts on from Renee's and Stephen's recent postings on 'time' and 'commodification'. At the same time I am watching the news unfold on the latest burst of the world economy (at one point I imagined I was imagining looking instead at Tatsuo Miyajima 'Counting' installations).

I cannot help thinking on whether the next bubble to burst - in similar fashion to the dot com and housing market bubble - will indeed be the art market (give and take a few monts or years from now)

The job of art criticism is to provide a reflection on contemporary art practice. Art criticism does not take place in a vacuum. It takes place in the social and cultural present from which we look, and look back, at objects that are already of the past, objects that we take to define our present culture. Art critics are essentially arbiters of “cultural memory in the present.”. Who's present do they reflect and what is their agenda? In an ever more "Connected Age" where artist's biographies are readily searchable on the internet, factual lapses should no longer be tolerated.