The future of arts journalism

First, read this from Teachout. He makes some excellent points about the direction that the mainstream culture is going in regards to the fine arts. Our local bloated pig of an NPR affiliate gave up on its classical music programming years ago, leaving the field to a horrendous commercial classical station that seems to think that all Western Art Music can be reduced to a few dozen selections (each one individual movements, rather than complete pieces). Fortunately not all stations have gone this direction, in fact, the excellent Capital Public Radio out of Sacramento has great classical programming (in fact they have improved over the past few years), and there are scattered shows on other smaller NPR affiliates and community stations.

Teachout sees the future of arts journalism as the Internet, and he is probably right. The newspaper chain that I write for is doing a slightly better job of arts coverage than it did a few years ago, but all it would take is a change of editors and we would be joining the trend. The San Francisco Chronicle, which has never really been a powerhouse of arts coverage, has sunk to incredible depths since becoming a Hearst paper. I still see some good pieces in the LA Times, the NY Times, and the Wall Street Journal, but there is only so much they can do.

While there will still be some arts magazines, many of them have theorized themselves into oblivion, searching out avant-gardes in an age when the term "avant-garde" makes little sense. In the meanwhile, the Internet is free (or nearly free), and allows for rapid exchange between members of the arts community. Critics, artists, theorists, audiences, all can participate. The initial noise of excessive voices will diminish as various aspects of arts coverage become self-selective.