The WSJ asks what if everyone is a curator? Obviously they aren't (a true curator isn't making one time choices, they consider a programmatic/object arc of meaning). I get into this issue in depth in my Bruce Guenther piece (which is coming...it is long) but the article raises the question of the type of institutions that don't have full time curators developing programming. In a way it makes the programmatic arc flexible but also schizophrenic, trite & flirty and therefore hard to fund long term. For example, Jeffrey Deitch is an excellent gallerist/gadfly but as a museum director his approach didn't work, creating massive backlash (the Fry is widely considered to be losing its reputation and MoMA is on the brink). Overall, I'm of the belief that museums need to own the long game yet do an occasionally porous event that challenges the typical museum authority. PAM does this with Shine A Light and New For The Wall events but not having a chief Curator would be a problem as The museum is really a 3 house system, the executive (fundraising), curatorial (collections and programming) and education (outreach).

Brian Libby with Michael Graves on keeping Portland's architecture wierd... and nothing is weirder than Graves' Portland Building.

Amir Nikravan's accretion paintings reviewed.

Richard Prince unintentionally gives a young artist a Chelsea debut.

Jerry Saltz on Marina Abramovich... he gets it. The work is a tease and for some that is enough. Others, not so much. I loved her Great Wall piece but lately it is a bit too much like Downton Abbey to take seriously.