Wednesday, September 26, 2007


Thanks to those of you who brought to my attention Seattle Post-Intelligencer's art critic Regina Hackett's irate post on the exact same point on Jacob Lawrence that made me so exasperated and foul-mouthed here.

Hackett writes:

"The disgrace belongs to the Post. Staff writer Jacqueline Trescott identified Lawrence as "one of the greatest African-American artists of the 20th century."

Aren't we past this? I look forward to the day the Post identifies Jackson Pollock as one of the greatest white artists of the 20th century. Because white appears to be this writer's assumed context, she notes only difference, black as a special case. (Diversity trainers: The Post needs you!)"
But it gets better, after making a good point about using an image of the painting in question for the WaPo article (and a rather weird comment on Mrs. Bush eyeliner), Hackett then writes:
"A smart newspaper would have printed a clear image of the painting and accompanied it with a sidebar by an art critic, covering the information Dangerous Chunky had about its market history as well as an assessment of its merits and its maker's place in history.

Oh wait. I forgot. The Post doesn't have an art critic. It has Blake Gopnik. Jaunty, arrogant and uninformed, he's easily the worst art critic at a major newspaper in the country."

Regina HackettDid an art critic from a major metropolitan newspaper just call the Washington Post's chief art critic "jaunty, arrogant and uniformed?"

Did she also rank him as "easily the worst art critic at a major newspaper in the country?"

I'm going to have to mull on that for a while.

No comments: