Pressies for Press

Jen Graves has written an impressively thorough article on the question of where the practical ethical guideline boundaries are in the artist-critic-gifts triangle. Fueled by an earlier blog post in which Jen discussed whether it was appropriate for the regionally powerful, Seattle-based critic Matthew Kangas to write about work without disclosing that he owned it:

Matthew Kangas, a longtime critic for the Seattle Times, wrote the essay in the brochure for the exhibition of paintings and drawings by Mary Henry at the Wright Exhibition Space. [...]

What the brochure doesn’t say is that he owns one of the paintings and one of the drawings in the show, a credible source let slip to me the other day. In the checklist, those are listed simply as the property of an unnamed “Private collection.”

Jen called Kangas' lack of transparency "outrageous" and then dropped this bombshell:

I’ve had several Seattle artists over the years tell me that Kangas has not been above exacting payment of one sort or another for his editorial services. If they are telling the truth, then why does this persist?

which lead to the longer article exploring the issue in depth.

Others have blogged about this already, including discussions at Off Center, Artworld Salon, and Grammar.police.

The stories' a bit more complicated that it seems (or at least the analysis Jen provides is more multidimensional that one might expect), but the evidence, without the analysis is pretty damning:

Early in his career, the Seattle artist Charlie Krafft...says he got a phone call from Kangas.

Kangas had written a positive review of Krafft's work.

"He just opened the conversation by saying, 'When would it be convenient for you to have me over to select something?'" Krafft said in a phone interview. "I didn't want to give him anything, really, but I did it. It was an extortion. He's a character, and I appreciate him, but I think it's predatory."

Eight other artists also on the record say that—from the 1980s to 2005—Kangas, either by direct request or "cleverly worded implication," as artist Jeffry Mitchell put it, solicited them for gifts of art. Most of the artists say the requests came after a review, and none of the artists say they believe Kangas's opinions were influenced by their gifts or their refusals.

After Kangas's 1995 review of Alice Wheeler's photography show at Vox Populi was published in Art in America, he called her, she said. "It was like, 'Okay, the review's out, when can I come over to pick out some art? We also need to go to lunch and we're going to Palomino and you're buying,'" she said. "I thought it was what I had to do." She gave him two pictures and spent $75 on lunch, she said. "My rent was $285 at the time, so it was a lot of money. I like Matthew; I just think that some of what he does is manipulative and BS."

Jen then provides an incredible service by polling some of the nation's top critics for a mini-consensus on the ethical boundaries here. As he often does, NY critic Jerry Saltz offered a poignant and passionate position on the issue:

"I find it appalling that a critic would ask an artist for a work of art—good review or bad," Saltz wrote in an e-mail. "It's as sick as an artist asking a critic for a review, good or bad. It's more than tacky; it's corrupt and clueless. You might as well advertise good reviews on Craigslist."

Jen is generous, IMO, in pointing out that there's no evidence that Kangas "was biased by his collecting." She even goes so far as to explain that there's a difference between a critic that a community of artists sees as an advocate and one they see as being more objective, with it being somewhat understandable that artists see an "embedded" writer as one of their own first, and perhaps as a journalist second.

Being in New York, where the guidelines are more clear (The New York Times, for example, states clearly that "An arts writer or editor who owns art of exhibition quality [and thus has a financial stake in the reputation of the artist] may inspire questions about the impartiality of his or her critical judgments or editing decisions" and has an injunction against gifts worth more than $25.00), it's difficult for me to understand the empathy in Seattle for Kangas. He clearly made a good number of artists very uncomfortable with his gift receiving, if not right out encouraging, policy. To me, that's his biggest sin. It's tough enough for young artists to feel their way through the quagmire of unwritten rules without authority figures taking advantage of their unwillingness to jeopardize their opportunities in a realm where it's unclear what consequences await for those who stand up for themselves. In other words, it's opportunistic and more than a bit brutish, if true.

I highly recommend the article and the other blog posts discussing it. Here, however, I'm curious if other artists have experienced this...especially in New York.