Art

1. Jerry Saltz
The Village Voice
Longtime art critic for the Voice and contributing editor at Art in America; nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism three times; author of Seeing Out Loud: The Village Voice Art Columns 1998–2003; married to New York Times art critic Roberta Smith (see below).

“Says what he thinks and tries to review exhibitions that either are a part of the discourse or should be. Sure, he bows to fashion, changes his mind based on what the community temperature is and shamelessly flogs graduates of the Columbia University M.A. program, but he is still New York’s most plugged-in reporter on contemporary art and the contemporary art world. Despite writing for a moribund paper, everyone reads him.”…“Of the most influential New York art critics, I find Jerry to be the most avidly curious and open, and while opinionated and argumentative, he is at least passionate about art and why it should be something to discuss.”…“Even when I don’t agree with his intensity of opinion and/or occasional vitriol (clearly personal at times), I still think he starts a dialogue that needs to exist.”…“One of our best critics. He sees everything everywhere. He is indefatigable, passionate and opinionated. Beloved by artists.”

2. Roberta Smith
The New York Times
Started writing for The Village Voice in 1981 and the Times in 1986; has contributed to Art in America, Artforum, Newsweek and Vogue; married to Jerry Saltz.

“Was a very influential writer, as she seemed to be the only one on the Times staff who knew or cared about contemporary art. Kimmelman has muscled her out a bit, pushing her away from reviewing the biggest exhibitions, but she has scrappily hung in there, with her fashionable but fairly well-reasoned opinions and her familiar ‘on the one hand, on the other’ praising and damning thumbnails.”…“Credit must be given to Roberta for caring about things like ceramics and folk art.”…“Considers her subjects carefully, but can never entirely endorse them. Her reserved style is respected, but not always just.”…“I find her to display evidence of a purely personal agenda in her writing so often that it undermines her very good style and clearly rigorous research. I think she has a particular bias toward young women, and like many of the others, has held sway in this field for far too long. Unfortunately, the paper she works for has a [big] impact.”…“At one time was a spectacular ‘advocacy journalist’ who wrote passionately about work she cared about. Unfortunately, she became a traditional critic.”

3. Michael Kimmelman
The New York Times
Chief art critic for the Times; regular contributor to The New York Review of Books; author of The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice Versa.

“An unabashedly New York–centered hegemonic thinker on the order of other wonderful writers who were closed-minded 20th-centurists.”…“As the head guy at the Times, his reviews mean more than anyone else’s there, so it is frustrating to realize that (1) his tastes in contemporary art are unadventurous and seem to be entirely formed by blue-chip Chelsea galleries, (2) his opinions are predictably those that admire power and monetary success, and (3) he deliberately refuses to venture forth intellectually from his enclave of white hetero male power (Minimalism is his lodestar).”…“Very considered and thorough—usually presenting a balanced argument even when he feels very strongly. Can be somewhat of a snob intellectually, but overall is measured and aware of his own biases.”…“Influential writer who does not always see beyond the stars.”

4. Holland Cotter
The New York Times
Art critic for the Times and a contributing editor at Art in America.

“Holland Cotter is the most erudite critic on the Times art team. Sadly, though, he seems to exclusively review exhibitions that reflect his personal passions: non-Western art and gay themes. To have a critic with excellent art-historical chops cover exhibitions with very specific ‘specialities’ in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, but after so long one begins to wonder what it would be like to read Michael Kimmelman on a show at the Asia Society.”…“His aesthetic is very specific and easy to predict in terms of his responses. However, he is relatively open-minded compared to others at the Times and does at least try to understand new work.”…“Primarily interested in gay and minority artists.”

5. Peter Schjeldahl
The New Yorker
Joined The New Yorker in 1998 and is currently head art critic; has written reviews for ARTnews, The New York Times and The Village Voice; has written several books of poetry, as well as many books of art criticism.

“Our best writer by a long shot. Too bad he has decided to cloister himself and write about so few exhibitions and artists, all of whom seem to be painters. If only a younger group of artists would strike him as worth writing about! As it is, if he keeps up with his small output on mostly dead artists shown in large museums, he’ll certify himself as a dinosaur.”…“Serious writer who tries to find the best in his subjects and in the process makes them more interesting than they at first appear.”…“A better critic when he was at the Voice. His work for The New Yorker is less lively, has less urgency and has become somewhat formulaic. In the long tradition of poet critics, he is a fantastic wordsmith.”

6. Mark Stevens
New York
Before becoming art critic for New York, was art critic for The New Republic and Newsweek; has written for Vanity Fair, The New York Times and The New Yorker; coauthored (with wife Annalyn Swan, an arts editor) first major biography of Willem de Kooning, An American Master (2004).

“This guy has some clout, but he basically seems to get his opinions from the word on the street. I consider him kind of a lightweight—perhaps because the main audience for his criticism is probably made up of wealthy collectors. No artist or curator I know would crow about a good review from Mark Stevens—or a bad one either, for that matter.”…“Very solid across the board—kind of the middle-ground critic who inspires neither great passion for his subject or opinion, nor distaste for his approach. Good information, clear writing, somewhat bland.”

7. David Cohen
The New York Sun
Art critic for the Sun since 2003; publisher of Artcritical.com; gallery director at the New York Studio School; native of London; wrote for newspapers and magazines in England and around the world before moving to the U.S. in 1999.

“The New York Sun has a predictably reactionary take on most contemporary art exhibitions, and their reviewers have little known background and no credibility in the art community.”…“Conservative, figurative agenda.”

8. Hilton Kramer
The New York Observer
Former art critic for The Nation and The New York Times; resigned from the Times in 1982 to found The New Criterion; author of several books, including The Twilight of the Intellectuals (1999).

“This guy is a has-been and a crank, and no one listens to him. If he loves your show, it’s a sure sign that it probably stinks.”…“Makes me furious that he even has a job as a critic any longer. He is emblematic of the reactionary, dismissive, closed-minded conservatism from which this country’s media overall suffers.”…“A Neanderthal. Ultraconservative political agenda. A force for evil in the art world. An artist prays for a negative review from Kramer, as a positive review is an embarrassment. A rave makes you want to put your head in the oven.”

9. Mario Naves
The New York Observer
A painter whose work is represented by Elizabeth Harris Gallery in New York; began writing regularly for the Observer in 1999.

“Naves has deep knowledge of the New York art scene—circa 1955. While this might have historical interest, it’s hampered him in the choice of exhibitions that he reviews, most of which aren’t relevant to the contemporary discourse. I suppose someone has to pay attention to the fourth-generation AbExers who are still at it, but it makes for tedious, irrelevant reading.”…”Inheritor of the ‘Hilton Kramer chair of poison-pen journalism.’ Just as conservative, but not as stylish a writer.”

TONY’s own

Andrea K. Scott
Art editor since 2004.

“A fine reporter who doesn’t really have a profile. She is a byline.”…“One of the few examples of a truly good art critic in New York. My only issue is that she is not yet able to exert the influence on the public that some others can.”…“Superaccessible and smart.”