Britain's art establishment is something I try not to think about too much. Reviewing exhibitions, you often get angry. After a while the anger turns to contempt; why do so many leading museums and galleries put on bad or average shows? This is not about ideology, or history versus the contemporary, or figurative painting versus conceptualism, or any of those other empty debates whose prominence is in itself a symptom of the dumbness of Britain's curators and managers of art.
I've seen lousy exhibitions at the national galleries, and I'm not talking about the occasional mistake. I'm talking about a lot of bad or below-par events. In the end you have to ask why they all get the nod.
This is all oddly familiar to an art critic. At one time I used to get permanently enraged by the sustained mediocrity of the exhibitions I saw. Then I thought perhaps it was me, perhaps I should be more open to things. But the reality is that many of our curators have leaden sensibilities and many of our museums are indifferent to the real quality of the exhibitions these pompous fools put on.
It's not that different from British politics and British finance. I suppose it's proof that art reflects its society.
