(This post was written by DCist Arts contributor J.T. Kirkland of Thinking About Art)

An article written by Marc Spiegler titled “Do art critics still matter?” was recently published by The Art Newspaper, and we can’t think of a better time to discuss the issues laid out herein. Essentially, Spiegler’s main point is that traditional critics are a dying breed, at least in terms of power and paid profession. Upon giving it some thought, the death of criticism might not be something that everyone is willing to accept, but we can’t see how traditional criticism will survive. After briefly examining Spiegler’s article we’ll use D.C. as a case study for how art criticism is undergoing a major evolution, like it or not.

In Spiegler’s article, ArtBasel director Samuel Keller sums up the change in criticism very well by stating:

When I entered the art world, famous critics had an aura of power. Now they’re more like philosophers — respected, but not as powerful as collectors, dealers or curators. Nobody fears critics any more, which is a real danger sign for the profession.

One of the most influenctial critics of all time, Clement Greenberg, is shown here.