4 ideas
The critic's job is to report what happened to them in front of the work: a first-person account of sensation, surprise, boredom or pleasure, rather than a theory the art illustrates. Readers can then test that account against their own encounter, so the review becomes checkable testimony instead of an authority's decree.
A review that hedges or only describes is evasive. The critic should commit to a clear judgment of good, bad or overrated, and accept being wrong in public. Stating a stake-bearing opinion is what gives a reader something to push against, and pushing against it is how taste gets sharpened.
Schjeldahl's coinage for the style bred by biennials and mega-shows. Work is made for crowds on the move, so it favors spectacle, installation and immersive, quickly grasped effects over objects that reward slow, solitary looking. The venue's format ends up selecting and shaping the art made for it.
Physical terms like hot, cold, heavy and light can capture a work's effect more exactly than art-historical vocabulary, because they name what the body registers before the mind categorizes. Translating visual encounters into felt temperature and weight makes an abstract response concrete and shareable in plain language.