reviews: dirty little secrets?

Gallery Revisited is pleased to announce that the new show,

"Consumerism & Product" #1 is getting reviewed.

Congrats to Katy Bowen & YaYa Chou & to the gallery.

Someone told me that the publication is known for giving reviews only to people who place ads.

I find it frustrating that a good thing can get turned into a bad thing by common assumption.

We did not pay anyone for this review.
Nor do we advertise with this publication.
Even if we did - that is not Always a barter for reviews.

It is a common & exhausting dialogue that the reason why artists in "blue-chip art magazine" get reviewed is because the reviewed artist is shown by a gallery that places ads in the magazine.
I hear it on other periodical levels too: on a "grass-roots", "local only", "non-glossy" art magazine level.

It is insulting to the magazines that have built reputations or are trying to.
It is insulting to the galleries & the writers who spend hours devising pressreleases & sending them out & following up with phone calls & multiple emails - sending images & notes on the art, visiting with the reviewer at the space & with the art.

If it was as easy as giving people money, then why is it something that is gossiped about rather than accepted?
Point being, it isn't that easy.