Look for Fire Smoke Kindling

The Village Voice acknowledges that an appearance of a conflict of interest is tantamount to a conflict of interest and ends its relationship with Christian Viveros-Fauné, after Tyler Green discovered (revealed?) in a Q&A (!) with Viveros-Fauné that the critic "has been named managing director of two upcoming commercial art fairs" in New York and Chicago. The statement by editor Tony Ortega is careful to say that Viveros-Fauné never acted in a way to give the newspaper pause—an important professional courtesy, but not a statement that edifies the ethical gray area. A conflict of interest is not an ethical lapse in itself. A critic doesn't need to be caught switching caps, putting on one hat to support the interest he pursues when he's wearing the other hat, to have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is the potential for an ethical lapse. Critics can't wear two hats—critics should not even own two hats.

Of course, it's reasonable that a critic might want to switch hats at some point to find the one that fits best. Jeffry Cudlin made the switch: The former galleries critic at the Washington City Paper (that's the beat that I write now), he ceased and desisted writing about local galleries and artists when he took the job as Director of Exhibitions at the Arlington Arts Center. He continues to contribute to the CP on museum shows, where there is not a conflict of interest. Squeaky clean.

I, for one, know exactly how hard it is to write about art and make a reasonable living. Aside from a few contract editing jobs and some regular assignments on subjects outside the art world, I earn my keep by writing about visual art. It can be done: I've found that living in a city that's saturated by media, abundant with art, and populated by relatively few arts writers makes it possible (And, if I'm honest, living like a graduate student makes it bearable.) No one is entitled to a job as a salaried critic; there isn't a minimum pay-scale above which journalistic ethics apply.

The questions Edward Winkleman raises, while worth solving, especially if we are to arrive at a more specific understanding of what counts and what doesn't in the register of permissions and violations, his premise is complicated when it need not be. An eagle-eyed watch for conflicts of interest in journalism does not actually concern art, the art market, the prestige of critics or criticism, or the rise and fall of arts-writing salaries. It's a concern for journalism itself, and one for which the answer is clear cut, across fields and across publications: One has to look out for conflicts of interest, because journalism only happens in their absence.

Some of the responses Green rounds up seem inappropriate to me. Maybe Viveros-Fauné ought to have known better, but by his own admission, he is not by training a journalist; he came to criticism by way of his specialty knowledge, having owned a gallery. I would hardly call it shameful that Viveros-Fauné erred, even if his efforts to excuse his shortsightedness by pointing out the mote in every critic's eye came off as desperate. At the risk of being too kind, I'd go so far as to say that even his logorrheic casting-about for some internal logic behind might be excused—coming as it does in a Q&A, which does not always suit everyone. Certainly, the result was the right one.

Here, for the record, is my hat.