Interesting he was kept on for so long. Not sure if you could say Time is much of a "gatekeeper" in the art world though. The guy himself comments on how it wasn't a super important role at Time.
Without wanting to be like "I know more than everyone about art", I have "moderate" insight into the contemporary side of the art world (a couple of friends are dealers in NY, I take a passing interest in goings on and auctions etc) and from what I've seen Time isn't taken as seriously as publications like Art+Auction. It's entirely possible that I've missed something though but I wouldn't call this guy an Ebert of art.
Are you seriously debating the importance of Time magazine? It's not about your art friends, it's about the hoards of people who look at Time and model their lives after it.
Not at all. I'm just saying I don't consider it hugely important in the context of the art world (both buyers and sellers); completely agree that in the past Time had plenty of sway in the areas of politics/capital markets etc. Anyways, don't want to drag this on too much, it was a great article either way!
Do hordes of people look at Time and model their lives after it? I haven't seen it in a while, but surely most of the art it discusses is out of the price range of most of us.
Time is a pale, sickly shadow of its former self. At one time not only would most of the people you know have a subscription, but it was unavoidable anyplace you had to wait.
And yeah, people absorb culture from what they read, even if they can't afford what they see.
