Serve the Servants

Jen Graves writes a fascinating piece for The Stranger about Matthew Kangas, a prominent freelance Seattle critic who allegedly asked for and received artworks from artists after writing reviews about them. Graves got the story after several artists went public with tentative accusations in response to this post, in which Graves questioned Kangas's ethical standing in promoting a show that featured art he owned and has written about previously. One by one, accusations about Kangas's requests for gifts contributed to a predatory portrait of the critic. The article suggests, however, that he hasn't profited much or at all from the works. He might have been motivated by selfishness alone—there isn't evidence of quid pro quo. But that's hardly the point. Graves writes, "Whether artists feel compromised by requests for art is not the only issue; readers and editors assume that critics are not being paid twice, both by the publications and the subjects of their stories."

Over the course of the article she considers the function of "embedded" and "remote" critics:

If the accusations are true, how did Kangas get away with it for so long? The answer to that may be many-pronged, but it in part lies in artists' belief that he is almost one of them, an embedded critic, for lack of a better phrase—someone who is an art lover and expert first, and a journalist second.

In the last 20 years, daily-newspaper editors have lost interest in critical reviews, asking writers for more trend pieces, profiles, and investigative reports. Last year, when Kangas wrote 20 reviews of regional exhibitions in the Seattle Times, the staff art critic Sheila Farr wrote only five, according to the paper's online archives—she wrote other kinds of stories, such as a three-day series about Dale Chihuly, which she worked on with another reporter and a team of researchers. Given this disparity, Kangas can be seen as a friend to the art community in Seattle.

The emphasis on reporting instead of criticism, or in addition to criticism, has dragged critics into the same spotlight reporters work under, where lapses of judgment are firing offenses. Today, being embedded is looked at with suspicion, and being detached is more in vogue. Each position certainly has its merits. But the industry is still struggling to combine the two approaches in a way that keeps critics passionate, engaged, and knowledgeable, without allowing their biases to be, or to appear to be, personal or financial.

Kangas exploited information asymmetries in order to put together a collection. He exploited the fact that artists would be embarrassed by their response to his demands for expensive meals and artworks, whatever the response was, and wouldn't discuss it with one another. He exploited the fact that critics are few and artists are many. He behaved like a predator—this sort or that sort of critic, nothing doing.

Posted by Kriston at March 13, 2007 11:17 AM