Her mother was happiest in the Arctic. She, on the other hand, seems most content reading and writing about art, happiest—if there must be a place—in the pages of an arts magazine Robert Fulford has called “indispensable.”

She is Meeka Walsh, editor of that indispensable arts magazine, the Winnipeg-based Border Crossings. One Saturday afternoon at the Ottawa Art Gallery, I attended Walsh's workshop on reviewing, held as part of the Gallery's Articulation series on writing art criticism.

Before discussing the nature of reviewing and the expectations she has for material published in Border Crossings, Walsh got political. Arts magazines, she said, are essential outlets for critical writing: they record culture, review what is important in creative output, and report on its presentation. Magazines are among the few venues where measurable distance exists between the commissioners of art exhibitions and those who write about them. Catalogues, though instructive, are rarely critical. A robust community of independent publications producing a multiplicity of views and voices and objective assessment is essential if serious arts culture is to survive in Canada.

This self-evident truth is evidently not so truthful to the Canada Council. They've cut grants to the magazine sector in recent years, cuts that threaten to cripple the arts in this country, including putting publications like Border Crossings out of business. This, we are informed, does not please Walsh.

Holding to the philosophy that reviews should be written with a spirit of generosity, Walsh, as a general rule, commissions writing only from those who both admire and demonstratively understand artworks that are assigned; she favors reviews with outlooks large and capacious, and advises they be written “as you'd wish them to be written of your work.” When assessing potential magazine contributors, she looks for those who know the artist's oeuvre, its location on the theoretical spectrum, its creative context, and the comparable efforts of others. In other words, writers who know their stuff.

But this still is not enough. Writers must have discernible style; must be able to write clearly and accessibly without making a spectacle of their words, without eclipsing the work under review, without jargon—in short, without showing off. Or, as Fulford describes it: they must be able to communicate art ideas to non-artists and artists alike, explaining what matters to the first group without boring or appalling the second.

Writing about exhibits should also create a feel for the event. It should make the reader want to be there, or, failing this, to search for more, to learn more, to be curious. To achieve this, the writer has to display enthusiasm and a sense of engaged interest. In order to get their opinions published, writers must evoke more than describe the show, and let readers know, with some emphasis and flair, exactly how they feel.

Subscribing to the axiom that the best way to learn is to do, Walsh presented several examples of “full,” “successful,” and “mature” Border Crossings review articles. Winning qualities included fairness, thoroughness, accessibility, and just the right degree of cranky opinionatedness. Openings were declarative and intriguing, the type that require a certain authority. Politics, artistic period, and curator intent were all explained. The writing also corresponded to the nature of the show examined. For example, here is what Brian Joseph Davis says about "The Downtown Show: The New York Arts Scene, 1974-1984":

And this part Walsh loves:

Walsh also speaks highly of veteran Border Crossings contributing editor Robin Laurence, whose article "Fred Herzog: Vancouver Photographs" is accessible, free of jargon yet erudite, and instructive without being didactic. Laurence hooks the reader, then offers context, locating the photographer in history and practice. Her prose dances with a sense of rhythm Walsh appreciates:

In addition to rarefied text, we also get a neat summary of subject, material, period, and setting—what Herzog was and wasn't interested in, who he is and what he does. An interesting pastiche of opinion and background.

Walsh will, on rare occasion, publish negative reviews, but only if she knows the artist can take it. The young and tender need not worry. But if the piece contains qualities mentioned above, if the attack isn't gratuitous, if it's grounded in genuine informed and passionate anger, and it lets loose with some memorable zingers—then she will damn the torpedoes.

*

For those interested in submitting articles to Border Crossings, Walsh suggests reading back issues and noting the style, which is a typical recommendation of magazine editors. For example, don't send manuscripts containing footnotes, they aren't used in the magazine—do so at your peril. Also, choose your subject carefully. Select exhibitions that are current,noteworthy, traveling, catalogued, and controversial. You must prove you are informed, not only about the art, but about things associated with the artist, the show, and the environment. Most importantly perhaps, you must present a compelling reason for its publication—and be persistent.

Finally, to hone your skills, browse and critique lots of reviews. Read, read, read. (Walsh especially recommends The Nation and Frieze magazine.)