In an email sent on August 19 to a list of undisclosed recipients including DC-based galleries, artists, and curators, longterm Washington Post art critic Mark Jenkins sent the following statement.
“My editors at the Washington Post have decided to end the galleries column. The last one will run in the Aug. 25 paper,” he wrote. “I’m very sorry to send you this news. I’ve enjoyed writing the column, and getting to know so many artists, curators, and gallery owners.”
An anonymous source from inside the newspaper provided BmoreArt the following commentary: “This column ran every Sunday in print – usually three reviews, often just a couple hundred words each, but Mark [Jenkins] covered everyone… It doubled as the Post’s calendar for art events, a double loss for criticism and a loss for readers.”
The Washington Post now joins The Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, and many other major newspapers as the latest to cut back on regional arts coverage. This is not a new issue.
In a 2013 column at The Observer titled “There are Fewer than 10 Full-Time Art Critics in the U.S.,” Andrew Russeth wrote that “the tradition of a regularly recurring voice in a widely circulated newspaper or magazine or even alternative paper: people who have the opportunity to expose a wide variety of art to a broad audience on a continual basis” is largely disappearing.
But the question remains: Why are major newspapers with robust budgets getting rid of regional arts coverage and critique?
In an article published by The Atlantic on June 27, 2024, about the tumult at the Washington Post under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, when he purchased it, the paper “was still operating under the Graham-era tagline ‘For and About Washington,’ suited for a local publication with only a relatively small number of subscribers beyond the Beltway, even though the Post’s coverage of national politics brought in readers from further afield, especially online.”
According to The Atlantic, the Post had been losing money for six straight years, and Bezos wanted to expand the reach to a national audience. “He said that the brand should be truly national, even international, given that the cost of reaching people online was essentially zero,” wrote Brian Stelter. “He called this the internet’s “gift.’”
However, the flawed thinking here is that a newspaper should alienate an engaged local audience and the coverage that is essential to them in order to garner national headlines and web traffic.
Where this logic fails is in confusing the difference between QUANTITY and QUALITY of readership, as well as in dismissing the longer term archival value of regional arts writing, which often forms the basis of art historical arguments, an ongoing academic and museological cannon.
Regional news in general, but in particular arts and culture writing, is disappearing from major news outlets. This is largely due to the internet’s influence and ability to attract a larger national audience over a regional one, budgetary constraints, and the assumption that the arts are somehow extra or the purview of a niche audience. However, this is a shortsighted mistake on the part of editorial leadership.