> The article isn't bad but it beats around the bush quite a bit.

It doesn't respect its readers? I think that does make it bad?

I'm more bothered that it's ostensibly a review of a visual exhibit without any visuals. Without flying to New York I don't have any idea what this is describing. And of course the Guggenheim's video producers are so full of themselves that you can't really get an honest take on the exhibit from the intro video on their website either.