Fresh Links!

I think your summary doesn’t exactly address the core issue. And when did mere disclosure become an antidote to malfeasance?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s a good idea to review your students, but a “bought-and-paid-for critical sliminess is almost too shocking to be true.”? If Schwartz tried to hide that information I think critical sliminess and shock might be appropriate, but there’s been none of that.

CORRECTION: He’s not reviewing his students but BSO.

There is a cesspool of conflicting interests that should have been very, very easy to avoid.

Your summary also skips over what Edgers reported: “Schwartz signed a contract with the BSO-run TMC, according to his blog (“The Tanglewood Music Center was actually paying me for my services”), and, in anticipation of his visit, noted that he would be staying for free at the Tanglewood guest house Seranak, the former home of legendary BSO music director Serge Koussevitzky.”

So the journalist was being paid by the entity he was supposed to cover. Pretty basic.

Furthermore, as I said at Regina’s: Creeping permissiveness is en vogue. The thinking tends to be along the lines of: Well, it’s better to have ethically-challenged critics than no critics at all, so let ’em do what they want so long as they more-or less, kinda disclose what they do.

I think that’s an unfortunate devaluing of both criticism and journalism. If the current economic model doesn’t support arts criticism and/or arts journalism, then people who care about that area shouldn’t explain away obvious transgressions, they should investigate and pioneer new models. (Fortunately, I know that there are people out there doing just that.)

The tide of blog sentiment is clear: A lack of journalistic standards is OK so long as news orgs pay attention to the arts. Which is bizarre because the allowance of ethical dubiousness in arts coverage is an indication that news orgs don’t care enough to pay attention.

It seems pretty clear I should have used a posting method that doesn’t have a character limit.

Thank you, Paddy Johnson. Thank you, thank you.

And Tyler. Ok, but ever heard about swatting flies with a tank? A cement truck? You’re the tank and the truck. I don’t know why you insist on calling music critic LS dubious and slimy. He’s working with students, for God’s sake, and he’s not reviewing anything he’s part of.

Sometimes I wonder why I didn’t just join a convent and say rosaries all day. The level of spic-and-span purity now required of critics makes nuns look like party animals. As the dark prince of American history said so well, I am not a crook. I feel like him now. Believe me, I am not a crook. Regina Hackett

Tyler: I see your point, but like Regina, I really think labeling someone slimy for this is uncalled for. The situation isn’t ideal, but it’s not so awful that the man deserves to be raked through the coals.

I am particularly uncomfortable with this kind of name calling in light of the growing number of critics who have lost their positions due to stories that have first appeared on Modern Art Notes. With the exception of Grace Glueck (who, in my opinion should have been allowed to retire in peace), I have largely agreed with your positions on such matters, but I also worry that too much of this sort of coverage will ultimately do more harm than good. This is a fairly minor instance — you’ve written one sentence on the topic at MAN — but it does bring to light larger concerns.