Search

Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Biggness | City Council Storm Response Will Ne… »

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Visual Art Re: Emily White Strikes Again

Posted by Jen Graves on Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I came across the story Christopher posted about this morning shortly before he posted it, apparently—on my belated way through Modern Art Notes's weekend roundup from yesterday.

I'm working on a response that will go up later today.

But for now suffice it to say that I disagree pretty heartily with Christopher. Emily White is a firecracker, and I sort of fear the prospect of making an enemy of her, but I have to call it as I see it: Her weird, simplistic, and badly informed story is an example of the sickness it diagnoses—not a cure.

Share via

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

More distressingly—didn't White used to work for one of those dailies?

And didn't she leave under unhappy circumstances less than a year ago? And doesn't her failure to disclose that pretty much annihilate her credibility?

Posted by Billy the Cid on January 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

If you read her bio it does disclose that fact that she worked at the PI. Is her credibility unannihilated?

Posted by MK on January 6, 2009 at 11:09 AM

No. It should be addressed in the body of the article, right up front, very first thing. To read the story without that critical piece of information—without knowing her 800-pound bias—is to be misled.

Posted by Billy the Cid on January 6, 2009 at 11:19 AM

I did read her article and thought it was seriously lightweight: underreported, vaguely written, and kinda lazy.

Posted by John Scott Tynes on January 6, 2009 at 11:38 AM

COMMENT DELETED: Sock-puppetry
We'd rather not moderate your comments, but off-topic, gratuitously inflammatory, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate remarks may be removed, and repeat offenders may be banned from commenting. We never censor comments based on ideology. Thanks to all who add to the conversation on Slog.

Posted by Comment Deleted on January 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM

I just read that at lunch. I too like Emily White, but never liked the former art critic.

It's like that A.L. moron at the New Yorker who does movie reviews - I've seen most of the movies they "a distinguished critic" review and A.L. is almost always WRONG.

I don't care how fun they are at parties or how many in jokes they put in their scrivenings, a critic needs to be able to reach most of the people that read their criticisms.

Posted by Will in Seattle on January 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM

@6: I read A.L. at the New Yorker for the pleasure of reading his amazing writing. There was once a movie critic whose opinion I followed because whatever his opinion of a movie, I determined that my opinion of said movie would be the opposite. Thus, helping to avoid seeing some bad movies.

Posted by fARTing on January 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM

I just read the piece myself and couldn't agree more with your sentiments, Jen. Ms. White never explains what distinguishes good criticism from bad and what - if anything - these distinctions might have to do with the phenomenon she is describing. Her essay is just the kind of lazy, middle-weight, middle-brow fluff that bores readers and has contributed the extinction of the species Criticus artis 'Dailyi'.

Posted by Jim Demetre on January 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM

where is your follow up Jen?
I think that you are right on.

Posted by Scott Dow on January 7, 2009 at 3:04 AM