Blake Gopnik reviews the Gabriel Orozco photography show at the Hirshhorn in today's Post.

Unfortunately, this Gopnik review only occasionally lives up to the usual high standards of his writing and lectures. Many of his observations take a much more standard, hackneyed tack. In many of his descriptions and comments on the show, Gopnik prowls the newsprint page and gives us built-in, unaltered moments of epiphany, just as common art scribes have done for about a century.

(Above paragraph has a mirror cousin in Gopnik's review).... fun with Blake and Lenny.

Here's another interesting insight into the mind of this brilliant critic in describing why some of Orozco's photos are not good:

"All of them are striking images, and that's what makes them fail."

So a striking image (and they are striking according to Blake because "these pictures are striking because they point back at well-established notions of what now constitutes an arty picture") is a failure as a good photograph?

Am I the only one who is confused here?