Kimmelman at the US Open: I like it.

Post below this one: Around the blogosphere.

This week's No. 1 email-to-MAN question has been: What do you think of that NYT tennis guy, Michael Kimmelman? I suspect that most of the questioners expect me to say something dismissive and mean. (Let's face it, I frequently find fault with things Kimmelman.) But, except, except, but...

Well, I like that MK is blogging the Open. (Here's an author-link to Kimmelman's posts.)  It's not like there's much going on in the art world the last week or two of August anyway. (This is why the NYT is reviewing a minor show in Portland, Maine. Speaking of that: How lame. There are much, much more deserving shows in San Francisco, and San Diego, for example. Oops. I mean, they are a national paper, aren't they? Or does that only sometimes apply to art? And what was with that half-page blog excerpt today? Space-filler! And The Art of Tennis? Art? Art? Silly.) 

Sure, if I were Roberta Smith or Holland Cotter I'd be wondering if Kimmelman was bored. But here's what I like about it: Art world people are often too insular, too focused on climate-controlled spaces. It's good for us to get out of our bubble, to stretch a bit. (And the tennis world, what with its internationalism, gobs of cash and all, isn't that dissimilar from the art world. Unlike gelato coverage, it's a stretch that makes sense.)

You see some of this in Kimmelman's postings. The rhythms of tennis aren't so different from the rhythms of gallery-going. I like that Kimmelman reminds us that art isn't just shown, it's made. That the experience matters. Atmosphere too. And that steadiness doesn't get you as much attention as flashiness.

I would bet that Kimmelman is finding the semi-sabbatical rather useful. You'd be amazed how many art writing/blog ideas I get when I'm sitting at Washington Capitals games.