A reader responds: You're nuts. Apollinaire responds. Postscript from Paul Parish. [UPDATED Feb. 25 with summary of vaporized comments]

There has been quite a bit of talk about the previous post, on the Macaulay appointment at the Times to chief dance critic, in the blogosphere. Here's an example. I respond below.

But first: The comments to this and the previous post, including one from Foot contributor Eva Yaa Asantewaa, have been lost. Both Doug McLennan, artsjournal head, and I have contacted the web site operator. They haven't responded yet. There's still hope! In the meantime, a summary:

Eva said she really enjoyed Claudia La Rocco's reviews, and though she didn't know what it took to meet the Times' criteria for top toodles, she thought La Rocco was a viable possibility. Lori Ortiz, editor at the Gay City News, said though she was very excited by the work of the three freelancers, she had also found Kisselgoff valuable--particuarly her knowledge of ballet--and had appreciated Jack Anderson's clarity. Reader Tonya was appalled that Rockwell referred to his freelancers as "girls" and said she was just beginning to realize how sexist the world of dance could be. Reader Kate said there hadn't been much talk of Macaulay's interest and knowledge of the contemporary dance scene: his strengths seemed to lie in ballet and the historical. I hope I haven't misrepresented anyone. Hopefully we'll have the comments back up soon.

From Seattle Post-Intelligencer's art critic and blogger Regina Hackett:

Hi. I like your blog and like the challenge of this post, which I mainly don't agree with.

What's your point? Women don't get a fair shake as dance critics at NYT? You can't say that while admitting that the Anna Kisselgoff era was endless. Toot! Toot! The logic train is leaving the station without you.

And if John Rockwell happened to call freelancers he knows "girls," so what? Girl isn't so awful an insult, and yes, if you want to call him and whatever male cohorts he can muster to make four at bridge the boys, I'm sure he'll take it like a man.

You say the new hire is good, but why isn't he a woman and from New York?

London is not Mars. There is much intellectual traffic between the two cities.

I sincerely don't understand why you want him to be a woman. Isn't it more important that he connect with the field in a vital way?

Remember Anderson at the Times? Years went by, and his dance reviews never got any better. And Ms. K? She was better than he was by miles without actually being any more than moderately servicable.

I can't believe you believe your post. Upon reflection, wouldn't you agree it's just too tiresome for words?

Sincerely, Regina Hackett, (Art To Go.)

Apollinaire responds:

Wouldn't I "agree it's just too tiresome for words"? No. But I'd agree you need to learn some manners.

Nevertheless, I'll answer you: As I said at the top of the last post, this wasn't the occasion for going into all of the problems with the Kisselgoff and Rockwell reigns. But yes, Kisselgoff was terrible AND a woman. This does not mean that a woman would have to be terrible, however.

As I mentioned before, the ranks of journalists, even among critics, are skewed heavily toward men. The fact that in the one field where women have been such a majority--such avid participants, enthusiasts and writers--the Times couldn't find one for the open post is a case in point.

About candidates for dance critics: you need to judge women on their JOURNALISM--on the reviews themselves. I got a peek at the notice of Macaulay's hire that the Times sent around to the staff, and they seemed most impressed by all the books he had written.

There are several women writers based in New York who I think would have made a splendid chief right now. I don't think the three freelancers whom Rockwell hired two years ago have yet demonstrated adequate critical chops for the top post. That they're all more fun and interesting to read than either Rockwell or Kisselgoff says something, but perhaps not enough. On the other hand, they've been quite limited, word-count-wise. Maybe with more words and a better example.... (Jennifer Dunning, of course, has been there for a long time--and her example is wonderful. The fact that the Times overlooked her when they needed an interim chief is another case of their slobbiness.)

But that's the point: The Times auditioned three people who had as yet insufficient experience as critics. Of course they weren't going to be moved up, and the Times would have to hire yet another person to be chief, forcing the three freelancers to continue to compete with each other for the remaining position. The whole process was thoughtless.

It's very possible the Times would have treated men just as shoddily, but it so happened they did this to women, and at my age--I'm 43, perhaps an older generation than your own--it seems horribly familiar.

Does the Times' recklessness reflect badly on Macaulay? Not at all. It just happens to be the situation he's inheriting.

About London not being Mars, I'll let my friend Paul Parish respond:

Hey, Apollinaire, what I liked about your post was your affirmation of the feminist concern, in good old-fashioned terms, and -- though you didn't emphasize it enough -- Alastair's lack of a passionate interest in the New York art scene, the kind that means you have to GO SEE STUFF and develop your taste in the only way you can, which is in direct contact with the strict taste-making organ of the artists, which must be experienced over time for you to have a real feel for how that organ operates, when it constricts and when it dilates..... If you don't know that, you don't really know the first thing.

And that's what Alastair as a Londoner ain't got.