I think it says something about Western art critics' lack of exposure to other cultures that not a single one of them, to my knowledge, ever mentioned this place (or other similar Shinto shrines) in discussing Christo's very similar "The Gates" installation in Central Park last year.

That's a good rationale, GB, but I think there is another explanation taking precedence here, and that is journalistic laziness.

Most people working the art critic's desk at top-tier newspapers have an Ivy League degree. They've been well schooled in music, architecture and the fine arts. Chances are they've seen a foreign or independent film where Torii gates are on view (heck, even "Memoirs of a Geisha" had a scene where Sayuri, as a child, ran through Fushimi-Inari Taisha in search of her sister), and Conde Nast Traveller ran a special issue on Japan in 2005 with a two-page picture of the shrine's canopy of red gates. It's not as if this image isn't famous.

I think the standards nowadays have fallen. Jason Blair (an extreme example, I'll admit) was able to file multiple stories with a Washington, DC byline, all without leaving his NYC apartment, and his editors were none the wiser. Therefore, art critics don't expect their editors to review their critiques, send them back for re-drafts etc.

A minor reason for this may also be the adherence to having one's critique appearing concurrently with the opening of an exhibit or installation. No more mulling over something and giving it some thought: the readers expect to see your opinion straightaway.

Also, you won't find critics referencing things in a classical context anymore, figuring the public doesn't give a fig about origin or context. In a critic's mind, the reading public simply wants to be told whether or not they like "The Gates". The West's current cultural bias towards emotion, rather than logic or intellect, gives critics a good excuse to be lazy and make uninformed judgments. We should expect more, but we don't seem to expect much from our media .

RFTR:

See, I think laziness is a part of it--but not all. I think there's also a general lack of faith in the sophistication of the readership.

I alluded to that as well, so we're definitely on the same page (wink-wink).

so 'The Gates' was a total rip-off... why am I not surprised? ... I'd rather go see the original than waste tons of money on a temporary replica. But that's me.

There's truth in that and, like you, I would rather see the original as well. That being said, there is still value in installations such as Christo's in Central Park. I think some people could never imagine, or could never afford, to go to Japan and experience something like Fushimi-Inari Taisha. Some might not think themselves the sort that MOMA or The Met would welcome, and they've never experienced how transcendant artcan be, especially large-scale installations like "The Gates". I bet children loved "The Gates" and a lot of adults were a little ashamed (considering how the major art critics panned it) to admit how much they liked it. Too much art is seen as distanced from the masses, the common Jane and John Doe, and I think they are right.

Something like this can really spark a person's interest in modern art, which is so often bizarre and inaccessible, and it didn't cost anyone (I believe Bloomberg and private donors financed it) a cent to enjoy. I think that's pretty cool.

Correct me if I'm wrong, GB, but it seems you made no mention of these gates on your post about the topic.

So? GB is not an art critic, therefore he can be excused for not making the initial connection. To an art critic, it should have been fairly obvious.

He's a New Yorker living in Japan. If he can't make the connection between a New York art exhibit and Japanese architecture then others shouldn't be expected to make the connection either. It doesn't take an art critic to notice a similiarity.

GB: With some important exceptions, it's a good, if obvious, rule to hold yourself to equal or higher standards than the people you are criticizing.

No one's being a beast, Langtry. The comments on this post thus far are quite polite, if critical. And that's fine.

MB, I would say that your suggested rule only applies when you are performing the same task as the person you're criticizing.

Presumably, you would criticize a surgeon who botched a simple operation on you, even though you couldn't perform the operation any better yourself. Ditto for barbers, repairmen, chefs, and so forth.

And art critics. Indeed, almost without exception, professional critics hold directors, artists, chefs, musicians, and so forth to standards they could not possibly meet themselves. That's the nature of the job. So it stands to reason that an "art critic critic" is not obligated to be a better art critic than the art critics he's criticizing.