That's not Jerry Saltz in the image accompanying the article. It's the guest judge from the book challenge (can't remember his name)
MollyPo   posted 17.08.10

Thank you for this very insightful article (on a show I'm bizarrely obsessed with). You have helped me to understand my own conflicting reactions to it. I do think, however, that there is another (possible more interesting?) way to characterize the "pro-market, pro-art" position you describe. There are many "pro-market, pro-art" folks who hold that the rise of capitalism has allowed for and stimulated both wide-ranging diversity and explosive growth in the arts. There is lots of historical and economic scholarship on the positive effects of markets on art; the two that come to mind are Tyler Cowen's IN PRAISE OF COMMERCIAL CULTURE and Virginia Postrel's THE SUBSTANCE OF STYLE. Rather than being pro-market in the sense of having a bone to pick with experimental art (aka, telling artists that they have to pander to audience), they are pro-market in the sense of their basic claim that without the art market and the parallel market for academic art/teacher-artists, there would be even less avant garde art. In other words, there would be less art of all kinds. (Or at least, less of what we define as "art" today, which is a whole other discussion!)
penny lane   posted 11.08.10