Kennicott on New Brow art exhibit 'G40: The Summit'
WaPo staff writer Philip Kennicott, who is not a visual arts critic, reviews 'G40: The Summit' in Crystal City.
He writes:
Critics generally organize their lives to avoid mediocrity, in part because there is so much of it, but mainly because it forces them to write with a negativity that alienates readers.What am I missing here then?
It is clear that Kennicott, who doesn't generally write about the visual arts, finds the work in G40 mediocre, and perhaps even the concept or idea of "underground art" itself is mediocre?
And yet, it seems like he went out of his way to organize his life to take a specific negative aim at this show, in direct contradiction to the above quote.
And I don't really have a problem with that. My issue here is that Style editor after Style editor in the revolving Style editor door that has been the WaPo in the last few years, has told me that the reason that there isn't more visual arts coverage in the WaPo is due mostly to lack of newsprint space.
And I have this friend at the WaPo who is an administrative assistant type person (a secretary), who recently told me about how the Style section and the Weekend section were being directed to coordinate coverage to avoid duplication of coverage of the same stories, shows, movies, exhibitions, etc.
And just yesterday Michael O'Sullivan reviewed the G40 show in the Weekend section.
Thus my issue.
Seem like Kennicott went out of his way, in direct contradiction to his own words, and in direct conflict with the WaPo's policy to avoid duplication of coverage, to write a negative review about a show and an art movement that he considers mediocre.
Why? What am I missing here?
And where's the Style editor telling him: "Sorry Phil, but the Weekend section already wrote about this show."
Unless Kennicott replied: "Sorry Scott Vogel (or whoever is his editor), but I really hate this kind of art and really want to explain why."
But then, I've also got this nagging feeling about how Kennicott is so out of touch with what this genre of art is all about, what it encompasses, how it has reached the megastars of his high brow art world (think Takashi Murakami), that he is looking at this show and this genre of art through opera glasses from the expensive seats, and with his nose somewhere in the upper stratosphere.
Sort of like the old guys from the old Salons looked at the refuses, and we know how that turned out.
On the other hand, a bad review is better than no review at all, and two reviews in a art-review-poor newspaper such as the WaPo is, is quite a score for G40. So, in a Warholian sense, Kennicott is helping out the cause that he is attempting to diminish.
Asi es la vida!
