That quote stuns me every time I see it.

Micheal Kimmelman is a expert at giving a good review while suggesting that he really didn't like the show. I have a feeling that something similar is going on here. A quote that horrible (it even acknowledges its own horribleness) probably has a back story. "ideal human freedom" smells like a euphemism to me.

I'm not sure there's any back story here other than Siegel being a hamfisted, faux-provocative art critic. He wants to associate Twombly with something like a Wildean aestheticism and make the reader sit up at the same time; but all he does is embarass himself.

If you listen to the podcast about Picasso's portrait of Gertrude Stein, Siegel plainly says that it is a bad painting because Picasso didn't want to fuck Stein. The problem with Siegel's criticism is that he always goes for the gimmick: playing up Picasso's peccadilloes and Stein's ugly mug to the point of caricature. He gives Twombly the same treatment (for no discernable reason). It's hard for me to trust his instincts because I know he always reaches low.

It's not that these biographical details weren't accurate, but we all know that these tidbits don't explain these celestial artists. It's OK for the red carpet or gallery whispering—but this is the Met, his listeners are ostensibly not professional art viewers, and the work deserves better.

When did Michael Kimmelman last not like a show?

Excellent points regarding Siegel's Picasso comments, Kriston. It was just that sort of idea I was trying to get at when I mentioned his criticisms of Balthus in my post on the podcast. Coming after what it does, who can take it seriously?

Whatever, Kimmelman. I knew Twombly was gay and I still didn't think he deserved an entire floor at the Whitney. His pieces work as part of a collection, like the drawings gallery at MoMA, but the Whitney retrospective just underwhelmed, especially compared to the Tim Hawkinson exhibit. There just didn't seem to be enough substance to it. The exhibition also felt poorly hung and I don't understand the aesthetic decision to lay down temporary white carpeting. I assume it was to make the entire gallery monochromatic to set off his drawings but, of course, the carpet got muddy and wrinkled, which actually distracted from the works. Worst Whitney exhibit since Joan Mitchell.

The Whitney show wasn't a retrospective, it was a collection show (the collection was, of course, Twombly's own). The decision to lay down the carpeting was made by Twombly himself.

I may be alone in this, but I can't imagine listening to someone talking in my ear when I'm looking at art. If I want to know more about the work or the artist I generally prefer to read about them. Those audio tours feel like having someone siiting behind you at the theater explaining the movie you're trying to watch. I mean, I'm all for discussion and critique, but I think audio tours encourage the idea that the artworks are just illustrations for the "story", and that when the audio blurb is over it's time to move on to the next piece.

I agree, David. I think it's a good idea to do a little homework before going to an exhibit, especially if the art or institution is unfamiliar, but not on the fly.

However, there's something to be said for developing smart tours for the family of four on vacation or even the average young urbanite who knows a little but not a lot about art—folks who aren't inclined to do research before attending an exhibit. If that were me, I think I might find a handheld less restrictive than a docent tour.

Thanks for the insight into the origins of the carpet. The motivation behind that decision was a burning question for me. I found it to be terribly distracting. Who knows, it could have been a better show than I'm giving it credit for. Maybe I would have appreciated it more if I hadn't spent half the time mumbling at the ground "Why? Why is this carpet here?! It looks like crap."

Poor Cy. Everyone is on his case lately. I agree with the general sentiment that the paintings haven't aged well. The new work hasn't done the old work and favors either.

As for the Siegal quote (who is this guy anyway), it sure is fatuous. That said, I'm not unsympathetic to the general idea that Twombly's sexuality is a relevant area of inquiry in examining his work.

Kimmelman's review of the Greater New York show (take a look at nytimes.com while it's still free) is the sort of "I like it, but I don't like it" review I was talking about.

Poor Cy. Everyone is on his case lately. I agree with the general sentiment that the paintings haven't aged well. The new work hasn't done the old work and favors either.

As for the Siegal quote (who is this guy anyway), it sure is fatuous. That said, I'm not unsympathetic to the general idea that Twombly's sexuality is a relevant area of inquiry in examining his work.

Kimmelman's review of the Greater New York show (take a look at nytimes.com while it's still free) is the sort of "I like it, but I don't like it" review I was talking about.

Siegel is the TV critic for TNR and, I believe, the book critic for The Nation. As I've noted on MAN, I'm not even remotely sure why he's the art critic for anyone. (His Basquiat review, for example, was nearly as problematic as his Twombly absurdities but I decided I didn't want to be on the Siegel beat full-time.)

I liked the carpet but that could have just been me being relieved at not having to look at those ugly Whitney floors.

I frankly don't think we can fully appreciate Twombly's carpeting choice unless we understand that he is gay.

OMG, Dan -- that was awesome.