are abundant in contemporary art criticism.
A good mixed review holds noteworthy information and potential to build towards larger relationships. Mixed reviews then are possibly parts of something larger.
Aren’t there times we need to hold off on concrete judgement until we have more information?
Why then review the work?
I come down on the other side of a mixed review when it’s obvious that the writer just isn’t willing to say what he/she is thinking as it’s not politically expedient.
That seems boring to me as a reader. Why write?
“A critic’s job is to go beyond mere description, it’s to analyze, make larger connections, find problems etc.”- Carmen Winant
An example of a mixed review that I find of interest-http://artfcity.com/2014/03/25/is-jordan-wolfsons-art-meaningless/