I gave my impressions time to coalesce and settle in. I opened my soul to the effects, I allowed them to penetrate through me.
Denis Diderot Diderot on Art (trans. John Goodman) New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995 (orig. 1765), p. 3
Guidelines for writing in Craft Culture
Reviews in Craft Culture are designed to provide readers with a feeling for what interesting craft is on show around Australia.
Online reviewing is a relatively new genre of criticism. Reviewers have a wider scope that in print reviewing. It is possible to include quite personal responses and narrative that might look too subjective in a magazine. There are fewer mediators in electronic publishing – no designers or printers, just me (the editor) and them (the readers).
While there might be some very interesting stories and theories to weave around the exhibition, it is important that something of the work itself is conveyed. A good word picture is worth a thousand theories.
It is often the case that reviewers have some personal or political relationship to the maker and his or her world. While it is part of our brief to support craft, readers are suspicious of overly promotional text. It can read like just another media release. Sometimes it is useful to add a little qualification to what might otherwise be a quite glowing review—just to remind the reader of your presence, and that it could have failed.
To this end, try to approach the exhibition with an impartial mind. Openness of judgment is an important critical faculty that helps broaden the range of responses. Be willing to risk disappointment. There is no exhibition that you are obliged to like or dislike, even if it is on at Craft Victoria.
Practically, there are few limits in writing online. There are no real publication deadlines or word limits. Each article will have its own screen. The front page will list the latest submissions in each area. Readers will have the opportunity to reference older articles through a database or search.
Ideally, it would be good to have the review online while there is still the smell of the exhibition in the air. Something approaching the turn-around of the newspaper reviewer would be ideal (in most cases).
The text that you submit will be translated into HTML, which is the plain text code for displaying on web browsers. I can do that, so you can send your text in a word processed format. There are few style formats and it would be helpful if you could stick to them.
· Exhibition titles are italicised
· ‘Work titles’ are in quotation marks.
Articles are designed to be read in a linear fashion. Please avoid footnotes by incorporating any reference information into the main text.
We hope to run one image with each article. These will be in JPG format. As the site design will be relatively puritan, must focus will rest on the images. It is important that they are good quality. It would be helpful if you could liaise with the artist and/or gallery and/or yourself about supplying an image. The JPG file must be high resolution and at least 400 pixels wide or high. If there is not an electronic image, then you can send us a slide or print which we will scan. We can accept more than one image.
Commissioned reviewers will be paid a flat $200 fee for each piece. It is suggested that the review be between 800 and 3,000 words. The ultimate limit to word length is the attention span of the reader. If it is gripping, go for it. But there’s no need to pad it out.
In summary, please include the following in your contribution:
- Review text (in word processed form)
- Teaser (two sentences introducing the text for display in summaries page)
- Image & caption (including materials, dimensions, date and attribution for photographer if appropriate)
- Exhibition details (venue name, venue location, start and end date, artist name, exhibition title)
- Image (JPEG, at least 400 pixels either width or height, high resolution)
Thank you for contributing to Craft Culture. We hope it will help sustain and enlarge the value of what can be said with the hands.
Kevin Murray
Editor
