J.T. Kirkland, over at "Thinking About Art," has a very valid point about Glenn Dixon's first ever "Galleries" column review of Alison Clay at Numark Gallery.

J.T. writes:

"Is it too much to ask for an opinion? Sure, he's working with tight space constraints, but couldn't he say "I liked it" or "it works"? In all honesty, didn't he just re-word the press release? Wouldn't it be cheaper for the Washington Post to just print the press release of the show?"

And he's right! After reading his posting, I went back and re-read Dixon's review and Kirkland nailed him with one of (our shared) pet peeves: the "review" that describes a show rather than offering a critical opinion.

Somewhat surprising coming from Dixon, who is (in my experience) one of the most opinionated and one-sided critical writers in our area. Perhaps it is the seminal signs of the "Washingtonpostizing" of his work as opposed to the more aggressive style of writing usually employed by WCP writers.

Kirkland's own and earlier review of the same show can be read here.