When the critic (may be) making deals

A couple weeks ago Stranger art critic Jen Graves wrote about a prominent Seattle art critic who reviewed artists -- and then asked for art from them in return. It was a shocking story, a perfect example of something that should never, ever happen.

Then today, in the NYT's museums near-advertorial (now we know what it takes to get the NYT to pay attention to art and museums outside NYC), Lisa Napoli writes about LA's Edward Goldman, a little-considered local critic. (Why the NYT thinks Goldman is a big deal or influential is absolutely beyond me. If you're gonna write about an LA art critic, why pick Goldman when the city is home to a three-time -- and current -- Pulitzer finalist? Methinks the NYT should send an art critic to LA rather than to London.)

Goldman opines about art on NPR affiliate KCRW. I've heard him plenty on trips to LA and via podcast. Problem is: He's a corporate art consultant, a salesman, a kind of dealer. KCRW listeners have no way of knowing wither Goldman's musings are furthering the financial interests of his clients, furthering a deal he's trying to make or whether he's using his public radio platform to promote art or an artist he's suggesting that someone buy. This shouldn't be complicated: If you're going to be a critic, get out of the art market. If you're active in the art market, don't present yourself as a disinterested critic.

That shouldn't be acceptable to KCRW: Goldman should be a critic or he should be a dealer/consultant, but not both. And the NYT should have called both Goldman and KCRW out on this, rather than mindlessly promoting him.

(Side note: KCRW isn't stuck with Goldman. There are plenty of credible, integrity-laden alternatives such as Doug Harvey or David Pagel.)

Related: Two years ago the NYT's museums advertorial prompted me to ask (maybe) the best question I've ever blogged.