Reporting on art: Times taken to task

A rather savage critique of the NY Times spotted in ArtNet:

Chelsea art dealers are up in arms at the New York Times, but of course, out of fear, they won't go on record.

The reason? In its Friday editions, the Times routinely banishes reviews of first-run Chelsea shows to a few tiny lines in its "guide" section (and even here, barely five percent of Chelsea shows are ever mentioned), while Times critics overwhelmingly feature little known exhibitions in out-of-the-way, esoteric spaces in the main Friday reviews section, long a source for rich Manhattan collectors as to what shows to see.

Why is this so? Because most galleries do not advertise in the New York Times. In fact, most contemporary art galleries advertise in one periodical only, Artforum, whose circulation of 38,500 hardly matches the 1.8 million readers of the Times. . .

For the New York Times is a hyper-capitalist vacuum which sucks in high commodity advertising targeted to its wealthy readers, covering it with a pathetic, neosocialist editorial slant, designed to disguise its plutocratic raison d'etre: handbags for the rich and editorials for the poor. . .

Also, with the appointment of a new, younger editorial culture staff at "the paper of record" (bogus editor Howell Raines, age 60, is yapping about how much he loves Eminem), it's amusing to watch hidebound Times art critics squirm to preserve their jobs.

Since the Times carries a few pages of local museum advertising, Michael Kimmelman, who hasn't been spotted in Chelsea since he rented a car there in 1988, is presumably "safe"; his is just the kind of lazy, phony mind, a la Frank Rich, that they love in suburban mansions.

Holland Cotter has carved himself a place as "Mister Ethno-virtuosity," seeking out obscure shows in gyms and saloons across the metropolitan area, perfect for the Times' pandering zeitgeist.

Posted by David on March 21, 2003 3:12 PM