Not to be a pedantic prescriptivist because I know the rule about ending a sentence with a preposition is not really a rule or always necessary. However, the title of this piece:

Remembering the genius whom Stanley Kubrick stole music from

s truly god-awful. Why not simply have written the much easier to understand and more obvious sentence "Remembering the genius from whom Stanly Kubrick stole music"?

>>Why not simply have written the much easier to understand and more obvious sentence

because if you want to be a successful art critic you need to be able to garble and juggle your text until it becomes too cumbersome to read, thus proving you are enlightened

If that's cumbersome to you, you're in trouble. Besides, Slate insists upon using the proper "whom," rather than the far-more-common, though improper in this case, "who." Clearly grammarian chops are important, so what's the excuse?

who exactly was suggesting "who" instead of "whom"? top-poster was (justly) asking for a a clearer sentence, my point was, clarity is something art critics seem to avoid.