Tyler over at MAN has a scoop on one of the finalists for the Pulitzer Prize in Critiscism, namely Jerry Saltz. Now I must admit Jerry embarassed the living hell out of me when he said a lot of nice things a few years ago so Im biased, but who else deserves it more? He beats the pavement, has an enormous appetite/love for art and writes polarizing prose in a field where you get more perks if you simply write Pangloss approved art-marketing drivel. Giving it to yet another castrated art historian or some art world mandarin curator is the wrong idea (yet it often happens). Critiscism should be rewarded for it's thoughtful provocation.

What's more Saltz is a New York critic who looks hard at other places and has even had a huge impact on places as remote as Portland with it's boiling scene. He has an eye and a pen and of course he isn't always right. Still, even when he's off he is meaningful and there is no better way to judge a critic than that. He's the most relevant art critic working today.

Read this and tell me if I'm wrong?