I read two of the articles mentioned in Press Box, and I have to say that the characterization of them as hagiography is a bit overblown.

First, it's not like they consisted entirely of praise. The Post piece goes on at some length about how the Combines are "inchoate and overblown" and don't compare favorably to "earlier European assemblages." The New York Times piece points out that his later work "generally did not live up to his earlier achievements," notes that Joseph Albers was so displeased with Rauschenberg's work that he denied ever teaching Rauschenberg and notes that he sold only one piece from his first show.

Second, the Times piece really is much more in the way of explication than anything else - it's more about him as a person than the art. It includes discussions of his reaction to Albers, of his response to criticism of one of his early shows in Italy and of the roots of his collage approach to art. That makes sense in what is, after all, an obituary.

Perhaps the problem here is that Mr. Shafer doesn't like Rauschenberg's work. That's okay with me - he's not my favorite, either. (Give me Mark Rothko instead.) But it's impossible to deny his huge influence on contemporary art or his importance to culture in the prime of his career. I don't think the Times and Post pieces come close to overstating those facts.