What I gleaned from Knight's lecture last night:

I enjoyed the lecture. My day thus far had been consumed with non-art things that were quite taxing. Sitting in a theater listening to a three-time Pulitzer finalist art critic talk about journalism and criticism was refreshing, comforting, even. If I had been a good journalist, I would have jotted down notes, but my purse contained my billfold, lipstick, keys, 3 pens and my iphone. No paper. And I don't tap fast. My disclaimer is that the following recap is what I gleaned from the lecture, paraphrased, with my spin and from memory. In no particular order:

Elitism in art. Say it loud, say it proud. It's a fact- some artists are better than other artists, some art is better than other art, some museums are better than other museums. It's not right to compare apples and oranges. I, too, am an elitist. Elitism is not a bad thing. According to Knight, elitism today is a democratic choice. It has nothing to do with class, wealth, race, creed etc. Anyone can be an elitist, though something about wit was implied. I'd like to add that tweed is helpful. Or elbow patches. The guy 2 rows in front of me had elbow patches on his blazer. He was sitting next to a woman dressed for the beach, but luckily she was wearing a fur and leather duster. I'm guessing everyone at the lecture would have to honestly consider themselves to be elitist to have been there in the first place.

Journalistic art criticism, academic criticism and theoretical criticism are three branches of art criticism. Knight's job as a journalist and critic is to lead the reader through his column from start to finish.

Writing for art mags can have some limitations. Art mags are funded by ads. Details weren't given, but sometime around 1996 (?) Knight quit writing for Art Forum. For years, it was rather obvious that there was a direct correlation with the number of reviews and the ads from galleries in that city. I can only imagine that say a full page ad, might warrant some kind of review at that rate. Pure speculation on my part.

Writing about art is a way of understanding art. True that.

A critic's role is not to promote artists, they write about what they like, or want to understand. See above. Their role is not to pick winners.

Other artists are the best indicators of artists to watch. Not curators, not dealers, not collectors, not critics. Look to see who everyone is stealing from. Good artists steal from good artists.

The Internet and the future of journalism was brought up at the end of the lecture. The future of newspapers-pfft, but the future of journalism is a concern. I would add that the future of everything is a concern, but I would spin off into a tirade on hype and pop culture. I believe I got it right when I say he compared the online arts community to a small village, as opposed to a large city, and that he felt the risk of online journalism could lead to a homogenized view of art. Diversity and eclecticism are needed for art to thrive. I'm butchering this last concept. My apologies. I'll try and clarify later. (Feel free to jump in if you went to the lecture. I'm getting tired now.)

Baudelaire, The Painter of Modern Life, Manet, Guy, and Edgar Allen Poe.

Picasso, Matisse and Dali.

Dave Hickey's name came up and for the life of me I can't remember why. Doesn't matter. I remember being pleased when I heard Hickey's name. I like Hickey. I like Knight. Currently my dream cup of coffee would involve sitting around listening to those two discuss art. In Vegas, over brunch.

Rebecca Taylor (http://twitter.com/RebeccaTaylorLA) posted more of an accurate recap on Twitter.

I perceived a subtle subtext throughout the lecture– personal integrity. Not only integrity in journalism, but a certain, certain sort of commitment to the task at hand. A kind of "do the right thing, be true to yourself" code, whether it be writing about art or working for a someone with a different set of business ethics than your own.

I'm still wrapping my head around the subtleties within the Picasso, Matisse, Steve Wynn, Le Reve, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinksy narrative, but it was good.