And the Pulitzer goes to…

Holland Cotter of The New York Times for Criticism.

The Pulitzer prize announced the winners yesterday and Cotter was distinguished “for his wide ranging reviews of art, from Manhattan to China, marked by acute observation, luminous writing and dramatic storytelling.” He was competing against Inga Saffron of The Philadelphia Inquirer, who I am not familiar with, and Sebastian Smee of The Boston Globe “for his fresh, accessible and energetic reviews on the New England art scene, creating for readers a sense of discovery even as he provides discerning analysis.”

I’d lean toward Smee over Cotter on mostly everything. Smee is a real joy to read, and his work has been truly “fresh” and “energetic.”

Ah well. Cotter can enter the illustrious annals of Roger Ebert for Criticism, along with Robert Frost (four times) for Poetry; Eugene O’Neill (four times) and August Wilson (twice) for Drama; and William Faulkner (twice), Norman Mailer (twice), and John Updike (twice) for Fiction.
Did you know you had to enter to win the Pulitzer? To be considered, people must go to the Pulitzer’s website and print out and submit a form along with a $50 entrance fee. Then the winner gets a cash prize of $10,000. For such a prestigious competition, it seems a little grubby.
Do you think Holland Cotter sat at his desk anxiously filling out the form last year, or do you think he has applied every year for the past 10? What about John Updike? And maybe it wasn’t fair of Robert Frost to keep nominating himself; 4 Pulitzers should be enough for anybody.
I’m assuming these individuals are motivated by the glory, rather than the money, especiallly as $10,000 is going to make or break any of them. Still, what makes you wake up one morning and think ‘Today I must apply for the Pulitzer. I am the top critic/playwright/_____ this year. Where’s that $50 check?”
What I mean to say is, perhaps a selections committee would be more dignified.

Shameless Plug: Salon to Biennial


Another new book I would love to have. And I would buy this work, but it’s rather expensive ($90 from Phaidon Press). However, I think its both interesting and deserving of a good plug. Roberta Smith of the New York Times already did so in its Holiday Gift Guide section on art books, so perhaps my two cents are unnecessary. Or perhaps they are.

Entitled Salon to Biennial, examining exhibition history of modern art, Roberta Smith describes it as such:

“One of the most interesting books of the season takes a nothing-but-the-facts bead on a subject of increasing art historical study: the exhibitions that have introduced most modern art to the public. Thick and very orange, Salon to Biennial — Exhibitions That Made Art History, Volume I: 1863-1959 is a marvel of information, organization and design. Largely the work of Bruce Altshuler, an independent scholar, in collaboration with Phaidon’s editors, it combines engaging analysis with myriad details to create in-depth portraits of exhibitions that are known, but not well.”

However, I would like to correct the New York Times, as this book has been written by Elizabeth Zechella, an editor at Phaidon Press. Elizabeth, who is a friend from home, worked very hard to research and put together this lovely volume over the past 2 1/2 years. She is young and unaccredited. This is apparently the reason why she will not be credited on this book (although Phaidon recognized Altshuler’s limited role in the project and he himself felt Elizabeth’s name should be on the cover).


A shamelessly, self-interested plug of a great book for you artsy readers, and slight correction to the New York Times. Happy Monday.

Correction from Elizabeth Zechella: Bruce Altshuler did in fact write the intro essay, chapter intros, and was instrumental in the conception of the book. I was the editor of the book, researching, compiling, and making the selections of what was to be included. There was a team of people who contributed to this book in one way or another, including outside scholars, and a bevy of in-house and freelance help.