Alloway returned to writing about his least-favourite institution, the Whitney, in 1975, when he discussed “The Great Curatorial Dim-Out” in Artforum. Many of the 140 exhibitions that took place at the Whitney between late 1969 and the time he was writing the article were worthy of praise, and most of the exhibitions about nineteenth-century art were “absolutely first rate.” However, only a handful of the shows on current or recent art “represented substantial additions to the state of knowledge concerning the artist shown… What was wrong with the other shows was not, on the whole, the choice of artists but feeble interpretation by the curators and complacency of evaluation. If I am right, it seems that various dysfunctions can be located on the curatorial level,” and it was leading to a crisis.

Alloway cites as an example of the decline of curatorial independence Richard Pousette-Dart's solo show of 1974, curated by James Monte. Of the thirty-one paintings in the show, twenty-three came from one New York dealer, and four from one in Boston: “the museum has been delinquent in allowing itself to be used as an adjunct to the market.” The artist had recently left Betty Parsons for Andrew Crispo and Alloway thought it was clear that “Crispo, with Monte's co-operation, mounted a new market campaign on behalf of the new artist.” The curator was becoming overshadowed by the artist-dealer-collector alliance which has a vested interest in “furthering the work both as cultural sign and as object on the market.” The pressures they exerted were great: for example, some collectors served as trustees and so constituted “a niche of market compliance in the top echelons of museums,” and it had been known for collectors so-placed to receive preferential terms from dealers; dealers could place conditions on loans of key works, ensuring other works they own be included in a show; and the artist, if well-established, could demand his (seldom her) work be shown in a certain way. The curator should remain independent but “One weakness of the present generation of curators is their subservience to artists. Because the artist made the work, he is not necessarily the sole judge of how it is best seen, or even of what it means.”