The latest shakeup to hit the New York Times culture desk, in which longtime critics Margaret Lyons, Jon Pareles, Jesse Green and Zach Woolfe were either reassigned or let go entirely, was an indication of a larger crisis within cultural reporting and criticism at large. Full-time critics at major publications have been disappearing at an alarming rate for some time, and the ripple effects are shaking the very foundation of art criticism itself. (And despite the layoffs, the Times recently published a job listing for a theater critic.)
At both legacy newspapers and specialized art magazines, staff cuts and editorial reshuffling are decimating once vibrant hubs of cultural commentary. The New York Times is merely the latest high-profile example, but the trend extends across the board. There is a seismic shift happening in the media landscape, fueled by the rise of digital platforms, declining print readership and mass layoffs in cultural journalism. It also points to a larger epidemic in the consumption of this kind of writing, and how people engage with this industry wide.
Mass media layoffs have targeted arts and culture desks disproportionately. A 2023 survey by Georgetown University found that the number of journalism jobs is expected to decline by about 35 percent through 2031, which equates to more than 20,000 jobs. This is nothing new. More than a decade ago, Andrew Russeth wrote here that there were fewer than ten full-time art critics left at major outlets. A 2018 survey by the National Arts Journalism Program found that only about a third of visual arts writers and critics worked in staff positions. The pandemic accelerated this hemorrhage with many outlets slashing arts coverage or folding cultural desks entirely.
Print circulation continues to decline, with the Pew Research Center reporting a 40 percent drop in newspaper print readership over the past five years. Museum attendance also reflects a troubling downward trend. The National Endowment for the Arts noted a nearly 20 percent decline in museum visits since 2019, and COVID-19 no doubt played a part in this. With fewer eyes on the art, cultural coverage contracts accordingly, making it harder for critics to reach broad audiences or influence public discourse.
This has resulted in writers seeking other opportunities, and the rise of Substack and other digital platforms has arguably democratized cultural criticism, giving voice to many new writers and perspectives previously marginalized in traditional media. This shift in the landscape has also paved the way for the meteoric rise of vloggers and influencer-style coverage in the art world, part of a trend that I’ve come to loathe. Instead of encouraging deep engagement or critical thinking, they reduce complex artworks and nuanced shows into bite-sized, often vapid takes. The art becomes a backdrop for social media aesthetics or personal branding instead of a catalyst for reflection or dialogue.
The trend risks creating an art audience that doesn’t know, or worse, doesn’t care, to dive deeper and misses out on the real power of art to disrupt, provoke and illuminate. If criticism and thoughtful engagement continue to be pushed aside in favor of shallow viral moments, the cultural conversation risks becoming as thin and ephemeral as the Instagram stories that fuel it.
Meanwhile, the world of traditional art media is rapidly shrinking. Artnet, once hailed as a digital pioneer and a beacon of serious cultural journalism, was snapped up by hedge fund Beowolff Capital earlier this year—a corporate overlord with zero interest in nurturing editorial integrity but plenty of enthusiasm for slashing budgets to boost profit margins and gutting editorial teams.
The same hedge fund holds a controlling stake in Artsy, the digital marketplace with an editorial arm that was already stretched thin. Now, with consolidation looming, it’s all but guaranteed that its editorial resources will be gutted or folded into a leaner, meaner content machine. This means the erosion of thoughtful, independent criticism in favor of clickbait and sponsored content designed to sell art, not interrogate it.
Penske Media Corporation, the corporate giant that owns several major art publications, including ARTnews, Art in America and Artforum (as well as Variety, Rolling Stone and others), has also tightened its grip, squeezing editorial freedom under the iron fist of business priorities. The result is a homogenization of content, where the independent voices get muffled or sidelined and the emphasis shifts to market-friendly stories that appease advertisers and sponsors rather than challenge readers or industry insiders.
The Art Newspaper and Hyperallergic serve as the last real barometers of independent art journalism, but even they operate with significantly smaller teams and tighter budgets. Their limited resources mean there is less investigative reporting, fewer in-depth features and more reliance on contributed content. While they valiantly keep the torch burning, the landscape is grim for both critics and readers craving critical, independent voices that hold the art world accountable.
The New Yorker, long a literary and cultural touchstone, drew sharp criticism in 2023 when it dramatically scaled back its arts section. The move led to the departure of veteran writers, including Johanna Fateman, one of the sharpest critics working today. In their place, the magazine installed Jackson Arn, a relatively untested writer whose stint was cut short after allegations of inappropriate behavior at a gala surfaced in March. In response to the contraction of coverage, Fateman and fellow critic John Vincler launched The Critics’ Table at Cultured. Over the past year, the project has quickly become a go-to space for incisive and nuanced criticism, helping to fill the gap left by The New Yorker and standing alongside stalwarts like Triple Canopy in sustaining a serious discourse around contemporary art.
Legends like Roberta Smith have retired, and voices like Greg Tate, who brilliantly bridged culture, music and social critique, are gone, too. Even Jerry Saltz, despite being prolific and problematic, is part of a fading generation barely holding on amid newsroom cuts and shrinking cultural coverage.
As the New York Times cultural desk sheds more of its star critics, who’s left? It’s certainly not Nate Freeman at Vanity Fair, despite his buzz. Or the Manhattan Art Review (with whom I have a standing issue). The pipeline for fearless, deeply informed, intellectually rigorous critics feels dangerously dry. However, there is a flicker of hope in figures like Aruna D’Souza and Johanna Fateman, who are quietly charting the future of art criticism, combining social consciousness, unflinching honesty and a readiness to disrupt entrenched systems.
For critics, this upheaval is deeply personal and profoundly challenging. The elimination of full-time roles means fewer stable jobs that offer health benefits, editorial support and the time necessary to craft thoughtful, rigorous criticism. Burnout is rampant; writers increasingly find themselves locked in the gig economy; and the future of arts criticism as a sustainable career path feels precarious at best.
Moreover, as media outlets consolidate and editorial agendas tighten, critics often face increasing pressure to toe the line, balancing honest critique with maintaining relationships in an insular, market-driven industry. The fear of losing access to galleries, museums and influencers can lead to safer, less critical writing, undermining the very purpose of the critic’s role as cultural watchdog and catalyst.
Yet even in the face of these challenges, critics are adapting and innovating. The crisis in criticism is not just about fewer jobs but about the intellectual health of our culture. If we let art criticism become an exclusive club for the well-connected and well-funded, we risk creating an echo chamber that flatters power rather than interrogates it. The alternative is to fight for a media landscape where thoughtful, fearless criticism can thrive, where writers are supported materially as well as intellectually and where the exchange of ideas remains as vital and unruly as the art it seeks to illuminate.
No Comment! Be the first one.