Of the issues surrounding art making and the discourses around it, it is perhaps the lack of discourse itself that emerges as a significant indicator on the current state and determiner of the directions of critical debate on art in Pakistan. If we are to assume that there is a lack of critical discourse, we could begin by identifying what it is that we understand by the terms critical and critique. It would be necessary, and perhaps also amusing, to first try to identify who a critic is, in order to understand his/her role (in the art discourse, of course).

It could get equally amusing and annoying if a critic was introduced as a ‘critique’ as opposed to ‘critic’ as is quite common here. One could avoid incorrect labels by simply being called an art writer. It is bad enough to be the critic, without having to become the critique itself (or herself). There seems a very unclear line between the factual and the imagined in this field, and I can see critics writing to be an extension of his/her creativity, and therefore an artistic gesture, whose aesthetics lies in the creativity of the written discourse.

It is not visual, but it is about the connections that the visual makes. The connections that are made, that weave different tiers of historical, symbolic and material (medium) aspects of an artwork or a body of work come from creative (and critical) engagement.

Critical engagement, in my view, and contrary to common misconception, is not about explaining a work of art or even attempting to do so, but about an enquiry into the possible interpretations of it; it is a parallel discourse on its nature, which may include discussion on the possible tangible and intangible dimensions that an art work can allude to, directly or indirectly.

As such, a person critiquing a work asserts his or her assumptions about the work of art either in relationship to historical data, such as others’ critique of the same work, or the connections to the artists’ earlier work. Assumptions that are translated into a critical debate must have something to do with enquiry into the ideological framework and context.

Context gives meaning to content and that too alters and extends, depending on the context in which a work is exhibited. Art critic David Hickey has written something very relevant pertaining to the role of art criticism: that a work comes back later in time to critique its critique. The words of the critic stand to be critiqued, the only constant being the work of art itself.

And yet, critics continue to play a significant (and dangerously authoritative) role in giving relevance to the narratives of some artists as opposed to certain others. The critic and other market factors also determine and define the ‘mainstream’ and peripheral through strategies of inclusion and exclusion.

Anyone proficient in the English language using the net to ‘Google’ art terminology can appropriate words and be accepted as an art critic. This is especially so today, where there is not a fine line between intellectual and critical discourse and the marketing of certain types of narratives.

In our immediate context, the culture of copying artists’ statements and passing them as reviews is closer to reportage and often confused with criticism; a norm that safeguards ‘vested interests’ and displays lack of critical facility and dangerously close to plagiarism. There are many related issues that need to be addressed here, but for now one last note: there is a difference between criticism and criticising. How’s that for a critique?