Is there a personal "feud" between the Washington Post's chief art critic Blake Gopnik and the Corcoran?

Washingtonian magazine usually has very limited visual arts coverage, and it has always been a mystery to me why they do such a good job of reviewing books, music, restaurants and theatre and yet (with some rare exceptions) ignore our museums and galleries and artists.

However, the current November issue has a very interesting article by Henry Jaffe, who writes a column titled Post Watch.

This month's column is titled Too Much Poison in Art Critic’s Pen? and it's all about the "feud" between the Washington Post's chief art critic Blake Gopnik and the Corcoran.

Washingtonian doesn't archive their articles, so go buy the magazine or read it online, as it will be gone next month.

Jaffe writes that “A lot of people are concerned about the state of art criticism at the Post,” says one museum official, echoing the view of others. None would speak on the record. “He [Gopnik] seems to be very personal. It’s always about his perspective rather than a broader, critical look at the subject.”

And Corcoran director Davy Levy is quoted as calling "Gopnik’s review “unethical” and says the critic often displays “immodest immaturity” in his reviews."

Jaffee also writes that "Levy and the Corcoran were especially steamed that Gopnik ended his review with a dig at the museum, whose “reputation has slipped badly over the last few years.”

Says Levy: “A couple of people Blake talks to don’t appreciate what we do.”

Says Gopnik: “I could get 20 quotes off the record and five on from people who agree with me.” The Corcoran has exhibited “a pattern of terrible shows.”

I am curious as to what people think about this issue. Please email me with your thoughts on this subject.

---