While Tyler Green was working on a story for the Washingtonian on the National Gallery of Art and looking to include information on the upcoming Leo Villareal show, I was working on a story about the Leo Villareal show for a contemporary art magazine—and I, too, could not get the National Gallery of Art to confirm the show. For the same reason: The National Gallery of Art, like many art institutions, pledges news items exclusively to the New York Times, or else those institutions can't be guaranteed coverage.
The National Gallery must feel some real pressure from the Grey Lady to pledge exclusivity: otherwise, while the museum might not shop the story around, it would at least answer other journalists' questions. Is the pressure so great on institutions that it prompts museum press to lie to journalists? Though I explained that I was not writing as a blogger, though I was clear about where and when the piece would appear, and though I was emphatic that I knew the show was happening, the National Gallery of Art press office told me repeatedly that it was not. (This was some time ago and on several occasions.)
Today, Carol Vogel for the NYT breaks the news in the third of three 300-word-ish bullets. The story comes months after the actual news, because the Times has a queer interest in ensuring that no art news runs over the summer.
While it annoys me when press offices lie to me, it puzzles me that anyone would lie for this: an also-ran blurb in the Friday roundup. Is the National Gallery pledging the NYT the exclusive merely for coverage—any coverage? Are fingers in PR always crossed that the NYT will give them some value in return? Other publications that reach similar (if certainly smaller) audiences would give this story much more prominent play. Some still will, but losing on the exclusive is enough to make some editors lose interest.
