Newspapers with art critics: California shines

Diana. Paul Schimmel is a brilliant curator. As far as Chris Burden being my buddy, I should be so lucky. Christopher Knight is one-sided? He's a critic. The side from which he sees things is his own. I'll take him over a 100 more reasonable others.

Christopher Knight's nickname in LA is Christopher Knightmare. He is totally linked with Schimmel and your buddy Burden and is very one-sided in his criticism.

Well observed, Regina!
General news media does have a different audience, and arts writers there necessarily have broader foci. Not only does Chris Knight cover gallery and museum exhibitions, he reviews non-profit spaces and public art, giving both professional insight and general access to multiple aspects of contemporary art news.

And as a lapsed Houstonian, I experienced Doug Britt's importance in the Houston scene. He writes about public art, performances, art conferences and alternative spaces as well as the commercial gallery scene. He understands his profession and writes very well.

The notion of what comprises art news and art criticism for a general readership is key to the growth of contemporary art efforts in all regions.

I agree about Kenneth Baker being one of the best and last newspaper critics left writing. He recently wrote a very perceptive review about Anne Appleby's recent show in San Francisco at Paule Anglim Gallery.

Comparing Appleby, as she often is, to Brice Marden, Baker wrote:

"The two artists continue to address a common difficulty: how to project personal meaning into abstraction without expressionism.

But the materialist quality common to Marden's early and Appleby's recent work may encourage people to misread hers, which behaves very differently from his. Briefly, Marden's oil and wax pictures respond to light but do not seem to emanate it. Appleby's do both."

That is, to my mind, a very perceptive response to these two very good artists who have worked in similar materials but with subtly different results.