I'll be goddamned if this is not what I've been bitching about for the last 11 years that I've been living in the Washington, DC area!!!!

"The failure to challenge is a fundamental flaw in US arts journalism..... And how did this happen? Because there are few cities with multiple critical voices."

I've been frothing at the mouth about having more than one writer reviewing all 200-plus art galleries, non-profit art spaces, embassies and alternative art venues in our area - and a freelancer at that! -- it's not fair to Jessica Dawson, and it's not fair to Washington Post readers, and it's not fair to artists, and it's not fair to gallerists! (I ignore the Washington Times because Joanna Shaw-Eagle is seldom allowed to review local area artists - although I do thank the Times (and bite the hand that reviewed the dog) because they gave me a great review in my last art show).

But --- the point is that we need more than one point of view when it comes to galleries criticism - why don't our Art Editors (in both the Post and Times) get that when it comes to the (galleries) visual arts criticism/reviews?

There's several movie critics, several music critics, several visual art museum critics, several dance critics, a whole pride, bevy, ton, tribe... of theatre critics.... why only one gallery critic? The Post has many talented and qualified writers already: Wiltz, Trescott, Frey, Lewis,... plus freelancers like Protzman, Jacobson, Shannon, Mahoney. There's no lack of qualified art critics! It's ironic that the only paper that article author Norman Lebrecht praises is the Washington Post - but then, from a music perspective, the Post does offer superb critical coverage of music.

And yes - I do realize that once in a blue moon Blake Gopnik, or Michael O'Sullivan (or his freelance replacement on Weekend), is "allowed" to review a local gallery - but the bottom line is that we need more than ONE point of view.

Nobody asked me, but my opinion nonetheless...