Five things I think I think

MAN will be on more of a normal posting schedule starting tomorrow. Coming soon: Lots from Seoul. Meanwhile, getting the grumpies out:

1.) Why do newspapers spill so much ink on attendance at art museums? At movie theaters, the objective is to make money. As a result, tickets sold is the measuring stick. Makes sense for the media to focus on box office. But art museums are non-profits -- not businesses. Attracting the maximum number of visitors ain't in the mission statement, ain't what they're all about. I mean, if it was all about showing popular stuff, about maximizing attendance, wouldn't museums show us Thomas Kinkade and Peter Max? (Sigh.) So why does this story keep popping up? (A: Because many journos have a fundamental misunderstanding of non-profits and of how art museums are run and funded. Sadly, so do some boards -- see below.)

2.) Don't think that the only story about the Visual Artists Rights Act is about Christoph Buchel and MASSMoCA. Ed Winkleman has had smart things to say about other cases all week.

3.) I love the way Regina Hackett takes on art, the White House, and the Washington Post all in one big scoop. We'd better keep Hackett away from this bloody bizarreness.

4.) I love that James Kalm is on board the Clyfford Still bandwagon. (OK, true, among writers it's me, him, and, uh, er, ah...) Check out his Brooklyn Rail write-up, complete with video. (Something about the unsteadiness of that video is just right for falling into one of those jagged Stills.)

5.) The Washington Post ran a big package on museums yesterday. Good idea: When it comes to art, the DC scene is dominated by institutions. But when it comes to the Post's execution... sigh. There are plenty of opportunities for smart, in-depth coverage of DC museums. You've read it here, and others have agreed. Beyond that meme, the Post missed plenty of opportunities for real institutional stories, so here are a few for it to consider next time: The end of major acquisitions at the National Gallery. The total lack of contemporary art at the NGA. How SAAM's leadership holds on. Whether the Phillips will ever stop doing mindless, gate-craving impressionism shows. The role of super-secretive mega-trustee (NGA, Hirshhorn) Mitch Rales. Speaking of Rales, should this merit a tax write-off when it's hardly open to the public? (I've never been.) The National Gallery as fluffer. The unstaunched degeneration of the Corcoran under its new director. Has the Sackler put 'Muhammads' back on view and why or why not? I could keep going. Bottom line: I'm not surprised. The Post's art coverage needs a thorough overhaul.

Cheery bonus: From the latest Worth1000 fine art Photoshopping contest, this makes me laugh.