The post-truth era, a term popularized in the 2010s, describes a time in which public discourse is dominated by appeals to emotion and personal belief rather than objective facts. In this climate, the boundary between truth and fiction has become increasingly blurred, and our collective trust in institutions, expertise, and authority has eroded. The world of art criticism has not been immune to these shifts. As social media platforms democratize who can engage with and interpret art, and as artists themselves challenge conventional norms about truth and representation, the role of subjectivity in art criticism has become more central than ever before.
In the past, art criticism often sought to uphold certain standards of beauty, skill, and truthfulness, with the critic acting as a mediator between the artwork and the public. However, in a post-truth landscape where multiple "truths" exist simultaneously, the very idea of a singular, authoritative interpretation of an artwork is being questioned. How do art critics maintain relevance in an age where traditional notions of objectivity have broken down, and where subjective experiences are given precedence? This article seeks to explore the evolving role of subjectivity in art criticism and how the post-truth era has reshaped the practice of evaluating and interpreting art.


The Historical Role of Art Criticism: Objectivity and Expertise
Traditionally, art criticism has been seen as a profession that requires a deep understanding of art history, technique, and aesthetic theory. Throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, art critics were considered authorities on matters of taste and quality. Their reviews were instrumental in shaping public opinion about an artist's work, guiding collectors, and even determining an artist's success or failure. Critics such as John Ruskin, Clement Greenberg, and Roger Fry became prominent voices in their respective eras, offering authoritative analyses that were based on a combination of intellectual rigor, aesthetic criteria, and, often, a belief in the objective standards of art.
For critics like Greenberg, objectivity was paramount. His formalist approach sought to evaluate art based on its intrinsic qualities—its form, composition, and use of medium—rather than its political or emotional content. In this model, subjectivity was viewed as a potential bias that could cloud one's judgment of an artwork's true value. Critics of this school believed that art should be evaluated by universal principles of beauty and skill, allowing for objective conclusions about its worth.
However, even in these earlier eras, the tension between objectivity and subjectivity was always present. Ruskin’s defense of the Pre-Raphaelites, for instance, was deeply tied to his own personal and moral convictions about nature and truth. Similarly, Greenberg’s championing of Abstract Expressionism over other movements was often criticized for its subjectivity, reflecting his personal tastes as much as any supposed objective standard.


The Rise of Postmodernism: Subjectivity as Liberation
By the late 20th century, postmodernism had begun to challenge many of the assumptions that had governed art criticism for centuries. Postmodern thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida questioned the very existence of objective truth, arguing that all knowledge, including art criticism, is shaped by language, power, and historical context. In this view, the idea of a critic as an "objective" authority was a fallacy; every interpretation is inherently subjective, informed by the critic's own cultural and social positioning.
In this climate, the role of the critic began to shift from being an arbiter of objective truth to a commentator on the multiplicity of meanings that could be found in an artwork. Subjectivity, rather than being a hindrance, was now seen as a vital part of the critical process. Postmodern critics embraced the idea that there is no single "correct" interpretation of an artwork, and that each viewer’s experience is valid in its own right.
This shift also aligned with broader changes in the art world. The rise of conceptual art, performance art, and other non-traditional forms blurred the lines between the artist, the artwork, and the audience. Artists such as Marcel Duchamp, Yoko Ono, and Joseph Beuys intentionally challenged the notion that art needed to adhere to traditional standards of beauty or skill. Instead, they emphasized the role of context, viewer interpretation, and personal experience. In this new art world, the critic’s role became less about offering a definitive evaluation of the work and more about engaging with the variety of possible interpretations it provoked.


The Post-Truth Era: The Breakdown of Objectivity
If postmodernism questioned the notion of objective truth, the post-truth era has effectively dismantled it. In the post-truth landscape, truth is increasingly defined by personal belief, and facts are often subordinated to emotion and opinion. This cultural shift has significant implications for art criticism, a field that has traditionally relied on the authority of expertise and the belief that certain standards or facts—whether aesthetic, historical, or technical—could guide critical analysis.
In the post-truth era, art criticism is increasingly shaped by the subjectivity of both critics and audiences. Social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter have democratized who gets to participate in the discourse around art. Online platforms give everyone a voice, from professional critics to casual art lovers, and the barriers between expert and non-expert have become porous. This democratization has led to a fragmentation of art criticism, where multiple interpretations and opinions—often emotionally charged and deeply personal—compete for attention.
While this democratization can be seen as a positive development, giving marginalized voices greater visibility in the art world, it also poses challenges. Without a shared framework for evaluating art, the critical discourse can become fractured and polarizing. The rise of social media has amplified the role of subjectivity, but it has also led to the proliferation of shallow and reactionary takes that prioritize viral content over thoughtful analysis. In this environment, the critic's traditional role as a mediator between the artist and the public is increasingly tenuous.
Moreover, the post-truth era has witnessed a rise in art that actively embraces ambiguity and plays with the very idea of truth. Contemporary artists such as Hito Steyerl, Rashid Johnson, and Trevor Paglen create works that explore the blurry boundaries between reality and fiction, truth and fabrication. These works often engage with the political and social climate of the post-truth world, using art to reflect on the ways in which facts are constructed, manipulated, and contested. For critics, engaging with this kind of art requires a willingness to embrace uncertainty and to acknowledge that their own interpretations are shaped by personal and cultural biases.


The New Role of the Critic: Embracing Subjectivity
In this post-truth landscape, the role of the critic is undergoing a significant transformation. While the idea of the critic as an objective authority has been increasingly challenged, this does not mean that art criticism has lost its relevance. Rather, the critic’s role has shifted toward embracing subjectivity as an essential part of the critical process.
One way critics are navigating the post-truth era is by being more transparent about their own subjectivities. Rather than pretending to offer a neutral or objective assessment of an artwork, many critics now foreground their personal experiences, cultural background, and political beliefs as part of their analysis. This approach acknowledges that all criticism is, to some degree, subjective, and that the critic’s own perspective is just one of many possible interpretations.
For example, critics writing for platforms like Hyperallergic, Frieze, and Artforum often engage with art through the lens of identity, politics, and social justice, reflecting the broader cultural shifts of the 21st century. These critics might explore how an artwork relates to issues of race, gender, sexuality, or environmental justice, and their reviews often prioritize the emotional and political impact of the work over its formal qualities. In doing so, they acknowledge that art does not exist in a vacuum and that its meaning is always shaped by the context in which it is created and received.
Another way critics are responding to the post-truth era is by emphasizing dialogue and multiplicity. Rather than offering definitive judgments, critics are increasingly framing their reviews as part of an ongoing conversation, encouraging readers to engage with the artwork and form their own interpretations. This approach aligns with the postmodern belief that there is no single "correct" way to interpret art, and that every viewer brings their own subjectivity to the experience.
Critics are also engaging with the interactive possibilities of digital media to expand the scope of their analysis. Platforms like Instagram and YouTube allow critics to incorporate multimedia elements into their reviews, offering visual, auditory, and textual layers that reflect the complexity of the artworks they are discussing. This multimedia approach mirrors the way many contemporary artists use technology to create works that are immersive, interactive, and open to multiple interpretations.


Challenges and Opportunities in a Post-Truth World
While the post-truth era presents challenges for art criticism, it also offers opportunities for new forms of engagement. The breakdown of objective standards has made room for a more diverse range of voices in the critical conversation, and this plurality can lead to richer, more nuanced discussions about art. By embracing subjectivity and acknowledging the multiplicity of possible interpretations, critics can create space for more inclusive and participatory forms of art criticism.
However, there are also risks associated with the dominance of subjectivity in art criticism. Without shared standards or criteria for evaluating art, the discourse can become fragmented, and the line between thoughtful analysis and shallow opinion can blur. In the age of social media, where content is often judged by its ability to go viral rather than its intellectual rigor, there is a danger that art criticism will become increasingly driven by spectacle rather than substance.
Moreover, the rise of personal belief over objective fact in the post-truth era has led to the politicization of art criticism. While this can lead to important conversations about the social and political impact of art, it can also result in polarized debates that reduce complex artworks to simplistic narratives.


Conclusion: The Future of Art Criticism in the Post-Truth Era
In the post-truth era, the role of subjectivity in art criticism has become more prominent than ever. As the boundaries between truth and fiction continue to blur, and as digital platforms democratize who gets to participate in the critical conversation, the critic’s role is no longer to offer a definitive judgment, but to engage with the multiplicity of meanings that an artwork can evoke. While this shift presents challenges, it also offers new opportunities for critics to embrace subjectivity as an essential part of the critical process and to create a more inclusive, participatory, and dynamic form of art criticism.

— Isabelle Montgomery
Art Critic and Cultural Theorist