“For me an art object is only interesting as a relational thing," says painter Judy Millar in the Autumn issue of quarterly Art New Zealand. "The artwork isn't this thing you can go to uninformed and find your way of being changed. It's something that promotes thought and debate - a kind of thought-structure that allows other thoughts and arguments to take place." The same could be said of magazines, or the column you are reading now. It's not important that you agree with what is written, but it’s vital it excites discussion and tests art's mettle. We suffer from a paucity of art writing that provides art context.

When I moved to Wellington 12 years ago I was at least writing about local exhibitions as one of five writers in the press. These days other on this page you can only hope for a Wellington review once a month in the Listener. Then there were art magazines with attitude like Monica, Midwest, Log, and more recently Natural Selection.

Up to its 127th issue, Art New Zealand is the old familiar trooper. Its format hasn’t budged over the decades, providing a collection of essays on either an artist or an exhibition considered of note, plus round-ups of exhibitions by commentators in the main centres (though strangely - and cruelly given the lack of reviews elsewhere - these are always absent in Autumn).

Art New Zealand is by nature a quality bag of allsorts, but performing such a catholic function means interest varies and the articles don’t talk to one another. Indeed the Judy Millar piece excited because it broke away from the predominance of analysis by writers of an artist or an exhibition, and instead opened up the artwork to the world through the artist’s eyes.

Given the growth in the visual arts since the 1970s you might have hoped other titles had come along and seen Art New Zealand have to sharpen its focus. Its one competitor Art News New Zealand has grown substantially editorially in recent years, yet it still tends towards a generalist journalistic commentary. The old promotional air that it must promote that “there’s a lot of art going on” lingers. Then there is the pocket-sized Artzone, which with a minimum of editorial content is a more upfront gallery guide. How these publications handle any downturn in the art market and a subsequent drop in advertising will be interesting.

The art lover will gorge on these glossy magazines as catalogues, flicking through for a graze of who is showing whom, much like others might check out shop windows. But these publications don’t work on welcoming art into the world. They don’t set out to excite discussion or provide community for art amongst larger ideas.

Articles elucidating artists’ intentions dominate –something provided for by catalogues that cheap printing increasingly has allowed exhibitions to have. Actual reviews of art are scarce – heaven forbid that it might scare advertisers. Even on the web the voices are singular. It’s smashing that such a fine writer as John Hurrell has a CNZ grant to write reviews, but his eyeCONTACT website, which keeps you abreast of Auckland shows and has been “built to encourage reviews and discussion” so far features only one critical voice beyond feedback to reviews - his own.

Magazines can be about connectivity – drawing communities and ideas together. They can remind us that art isn’t principally about self-expression but about engaging in social and public discourse. The opportunity exists for a contemporary art spaces like City Gallery or Enjoy (as Physics Room did once with Log) to fill these roles in print.

One example from Australia is quarterly Artlink. The latest issue brings together artists whose practise relates to the themes of ‘oil, energy, and conflict’. It asks how artists are responding to issues of environmental sustainability, as politicians, planners and scientists begin to deal with these issues head on. Plus there’s a fulsome review section.

There is one New Zealand magazine making a good fist of this. The nineth issue of White Fungus cracks off with an editorial warning of the dangers of John Key, features quality artists’ work spreads, a set of pieces on sound artists deserving of more attention, and a stinging piece of vitriol on the irrelevancy of contemporary art from Rudoplh Hudsucker. More publications like this please.