What are the modern and actual art critics? Where can I find

>>9408522
>keeping in mind I do have some theoretical background in this field?
your theoretical background doesn't seem to have taught you the difference between the Modern period and the Post Modern, which isn't even a freshman mistake.

If you would like an anthology of criticism and theory stretching from the Modern period through to the millenium "Art In Theory: 1900-2000" is a massive anthology of all relevant players.

If you actually mean Modern aesthetics, it would be best to start with Delacroix and move forward from there.

>>9408557
By "modern" I mean present, that's why I added "actual". Actually, this is why you write modern with a capital "M" and I do not.
>"Art In Theory: 1900-2000"
Thanks, I've already read this one and it's good. It contains some names from art world and so on, but I'm looking for some continuous sourse of essays about art and literature, and - if this possible - that is not written by 70-90 grandees with their own constant aesthetics positions.

>>9408573
>Thanks, I've already read this one and it's good.
lol you're such a fucking shitty liar. Anyone who has that book knows you don't read it through. Unless you're some autist who reads phone books, such a liar

>"modern" I mean present, that's why I added "actual"
Which gets even better because you would be aware that Actual Art is an art movement, like Modern Art refers to an art movement. That's why I said you seem to be confusing the modern and post modern. Because anyone with any background in theory knows those things are not the words you would use, especially if you'd read an anthology which clearly defines them as such.

Stop trying to seem informed, it's easier to fill in your knowledge gaps if you're trying to pretend you know everything. Especially with art, because it has far better bullshit artists than you with many more years tenured experience.

>>9408587
>Stop trying to seem informed
Alright. I do know nothing and I did not read anything.
Still, I am asking - where all new aesthetics articles can be found?
You didn't answered my question from the first message, but called me a liar - is this an actual way of discussion?
>things are not the words you would use, especially if you'd read an anthology which clearly defines them as such.
Thing is that I didn't read any book about this in English, that's why I use incorrect words. Sorry me, master.

>>9408603
I called you a liar because you lied, so if you don't want people to call you that, try not lying.

Depending on what you're into, you would read different critics. Since you seem to call these people, without reading them,"grandees with their own constant aesthetic positions", I don't know why you would trust any of those critics either.

What you should do is inform yourself on modern art and after modern art. You're going to need that to understand what any critic is talking about now.

Instead of getting Art in Theory (though this is a great resource once you know enough terms to look stuff up in it), you should get two books which will teach you the basics of art since 1851 (The Great Exhibition which marks the turn into the modern age)
>Modern Art 1841-1929, Richard R. Brettell
>After Modern Art 1945-2000, David Hopkins
Yes,there is a gap there, and you can get the book by the same press that fills in that period if you want, but those two will stop you from sounding like an obvious liar with no background.

Then if you want to look at criticism, you can pick whichever movement you would like to focus on, and find critics relevant to that movement.

The problem seems to be that you think current art is a coherent group, but most all of it traces its roots to a movement in one or the other of these, either as inspirtation or as reaction. There are people who are still working in the modernist movement, or in the post modernist movement, but there are also people who are still working with land art, or actual art, or arte povera, or many other movements.

To make it clearer, what you're asking for is like saying "Who's the current book reviewer?" People should ask you "Of what genre?" or "Fiction or non-fiction" or "Scholarly or popular?" because there is no one reviewer, and no one review style, and one person who writes about every YA book that comes out will not give you any information about any literary work coming out currently. It's just a question which exposes your ignorance.

Like the Turner Prize isn't going to give the art prize to someone who sides with Rushkin's interpretation of good art, a critic isn't going to go outside his remit.

>>9408615
>and find critics relevant to that movement
Problem is I am not interested in some particular group.
Well, my bad is that I can't express myself in English the way to be understood correctly. There are essays that I read and they were not about the concept of any exact group - they were about the art itself, written by Liotard, Halley, Groys, Baudelaire - I just don't really understand what examples to give, because I don't have any books at hand. It's like philosophy of art, not the development of some movement - this is what I am looking for and this is why I'm interested in some kind of magazine, that publish more and more articles\essays.

>>9408522
I don't know, there are a bunch of magazines. Artforum, Art in America, October, etc. I don't know if they're really 'about' modern aesthetics, they're just primary sources.

>>9408641
If you have an art college near you, you could check out their library and periodicals, but, again, I kind of have to stress a lot of those are divided by genre.

You can get things like the Oxford Art Journal, ARTnews, etc, but to be honest, if you don't know modern and actual art are going to mean different things than you think they do, I don't think you'll understand a lot of it.

Even then, those are high art and if you want to look at things like graffiti or illustration, you need another periodical like Juxtapoz.

>not about the concept of any exact group
>Baudelaire
Baudelaire wrote to promote an exact group. He even chose a less controversial figure than the people he privately championed because of the backlash against the movement needed a more respectable face to front it, whence The Painter of Modern Life. There's similar problems with the others in that they are championing one movement over the mode, but since you don't have the background to recognise that, you think they aren't.

I'd do the grunt work because like I said, there's people whose tenure is based on being good bullshit artists, and they have that basic background info with which to own you if you try to start a conversation. There are people who when you say something like Baudelaire wasn't championing a movement, even though they know it's wrong, will tell you you're right because they just realised you're an easy mark to feed bullshit to.

>>9408657
Artforum's more for collectors, but Art in America would be a good call if OP's interest in more American art than the ones I listed here >>9408661
ArtLtd is also good if you want more American based out there, like Art in America.

>>9408657
>>9408661
Thanks.