I was a bit taken aback when I read the review of the current show at the Bronx Museum of the Arts in the New York Times this morning. “How Soon Is Now?” is a show of work from emerging artists in the NYC metro area, graduating from a program at the museum focused on professional development. Reviewer Roberta Smith had quite a few unkind words for the show; the review is at times cringe-inducing and also enlightening. Tough criticism is a tricky line to toe; when does a bad review devolve into mean-spiritedness? Is it fair for a media giant like the New York Times to go all-out on a small group of relatively unknown artists? On the other hand, I do feel that it is important not to give hand out free passes to bad—or even just uninspired—work. What I do know is that I would not want to be on the receiving end of comments such as:

“…this show of amateurish and derivative work by 36 emerging artists also says a lot about the competition among art mediums, the latest trickle-down trends in art making and the shortcomings of higher art education. In answer to the show’s catchy title, for many of the artists here, “now” may never come.”

“It does gives me pause that 26 of the 36 artists have master’s degrees in fine arts from respected universities or art schools. I think most of them should ask for their money back. On the evidence here, at least, they have only a meager understanding of what being an artist entails.”

Smith makes a few points about the greater world of contemporary art that are undeniably accurate. Artists statements are often full of what Smith describes as “overblown, one-size-fits-all artspeak,” and the bland pronouncements she calls out here are great examples. Artist statements are one of my pet peeves; they can be at turns overly vague and complete bullshit or overly specific and complete bullshit. It is a joy when I read a statement from an artist that is plainly written and clearly describes the work. As an aside, I am completely taken with Jennifer Loeber’s Zeig Mal series, and I think the statement accompanying her work is admirably clear about where the photographs come from and how they were made. (I should also note that that link might not be safe for work, just in case.)

Smith finishes with the following:

“”How Soon Is Now?” suggests that there is no point in spending time on “professional development” or learning how to advance one’s work in the marketplace if artistic development is not well under way. That requires lots of long, hard looking at all kinds of art, in all mediums, from all periods and cultures. Aspiring artists need to expose themselves to the sheer intensity and variety of art, to learn what they love, what they hate and if they are actually artists at all. New York’s galleries and especially its great museums offer ample opportunity for this kind of self-education, which leads to self-knowledge. Anything is possible when artists set to work knowing they have something they urgently need to say, in a way it hasn’t quite been said before.”

I had to stop and re-read that paragraph at least three times, because she brings up questions that I have been struggling with myself. Sometimes I feel like I have no direction, no overwhelming urge to say something important. Sometimes I am entirely closed-minded about the kind of work I like and want to see. Sometimes I just want to make simple, beautiful photographs.

What I am realizing is that beauty, even if it goes deeper than a purely aesthetic, pictorialist kind of beauty, is not enough to make something important. To be clear, I’m not talking about capital “I” Important; I am not planning on taking the world by storm. I just mean important in the sense that the work is challenging and transformative to create; work that is more than just my best effort but inspired and inspiring. Is it possible to manufacture inspiration? It is a lot more than just being in the right place at the right time, which has been my mantra until now. It requires forethought and conviction, which are two things that I am still a bit unsteady about.