Ok, the City Paper printed an e-mail of mine in "The Mail" as follows:

Hi, for the most part, I have been pleasantly surprised by the increase in
your visual arts coverage over the past year and a half and use of many
new freelance reviewers.



Now it would be fantastic if some of those columns and reviews were
available online on a regular basis the week following their publish in
the paper. It would be a great resource.


If arts coverage were a race, I'd have to say the The City Paper has been
doing O.K. in getting reviews and coverage out on the more cutting edge
shows. For instance way back in the fall there was a lovely article on
Tony Feher's work at Numark Gallery (the Pickup Artist," 6/14/02). It would take the Washington Post until the
closing weekend of the show to "box" it in the Galleries column.



Again, I can't stress enough getting the arts columnists online. While I
live in the city and have for over a decade, I repeatedly hear complaints
from my artistically minded friends who for whatever reason live outside
the beltway and can't get the City Paper thereby missing a lot of the
great writing from the past year.



You've got a buzz going with a lot of these new writers. I'd run with it
if I were you.



Thanks,



Karen Topping


This has been a very weird week and this whole letter thing was quite amusing. Emailing people at work that you have never met is a hoot, especially when they work in places like newspapers and help organizations where they are paid to be responsive. What else is funny is that the City Paper makes no mention after the letter that they ARE preparing to put the arts columns online soon with back archives, thank god.

Truth told the chain of thought leading me up to writing the note is just kind of stupid. I noticed in a recent City Paper that a Chris Richards, or THE Chris Richards, or THE OTHER Chris Richards had written a letter talking about this famous, if that's possible, Glenn Dixon City Paper review of the Cecily Brown show at the Hirshhorn. Well even though I've been hoarding City Papers at work, creating a firehazzard, for some reason I do not have this issue and have not read this review. The Modern Art Notes crowd was all a twitter about it last month, or the beginning of this month, I have no conception of time anymore. I am very very curious abut this thing, but not curious enough to go down to the City Paper and pay cold hard cash for a copy of it, duh. I really should have written in June when the Feher was open and I was all up in arms. Oh well.

So I have not written anything here in a while and I am struck by my statement, "This is the real millennium". It's more like "Welcome, to the real millennium" It seems it got here a little late. There is really heavy stuff going on and everywhere I turn it is as though you can see peoples eyes opening up like they are one week old kittens. The time for Victorian parlor games are over and at least some people seem to be reconsidering all that they have been spoon fed in the past.

Before, I forget attending a lecture by Jim Wine at the National Building Museum in conjunction with the exhibit "Big and Green" really was like the cake topper this week, there was an intensity about taking about sustainable architecture in the terms of art and experience and quality of life that was really revolutionary. The dollars and cents of sustainability will prevail I think because it does make so much sense. The unqualified thing is the people in the equation and if they can center themselves enough to make the same life decisions to sustain rather than consume.