It's only a matter of time before the New York Times makes unlimited content available only to subscribers, so enjoy it while it lasts. (I consider this a bad idea, it's why all of PORT's content is Creative Commons)

Holland Cotter reviews the choreography of Tino Sehgal at the Guggenheim.

Nocolai Ouroussoff reviews three classic films about recent starchitecture.

Then there is their art in review section with reviews of John McLauchlan, Joel Shapiro and Christian Holstad.

I tend to read The Times in newsprint at coffee shops, partially because I don't ever want a hard-copy newspaper subscription again... which constantly reminds me just how much paper recycling such a choice results in. At the same time pay to play subscriptions ultimately keep newspaper content more cloistered and won't be shared as much.

Overall, the competition for our attention and sharing of content was what made newspapers work. Granted most newspapers now are filled with such drivel we don't read them, even when free... but the times is still worthwhile. I get 95% of my information off the web and from links emailed to me and taking the New York Times from that mix seems short sighted. Information is ultimately only valuable if it can be shared. People will simply turn someplace else and I'm not certain that a deal with Apple for their devices will solve the problem either.

You neglect to mention a fabulous Portland artist, Kate Macdowell, featured in the 1/31/10 NYT Sunday magazine.

Kudos to Kate - primo porcelain!