Huffington Post: One of the substantial changes in the arts environment that has happened with astonishing speed is that arts criticism has become a participatory activity rather than a spectator sport.
Every artist, producer or arts organization used to wait for a handful of reviews to determine the critical response to a particular project. And while very few critics for a small set of news outlets still wield great power to make or break a project (usually a for-profit theater project which runs longer and therefore needs to sell far more tickets than any other arts project), a larger portion of arts projects have become somewhat immune to the opinions of any one journalist.
15 comments:
This article makes some very good, serious points about criticism. Times are changing and to be honest, I read this blog online, only validating how newspapers are the new endangered species. There are many reasons for why that is and each reason is broadly touched upon in this article, and it is, fir the most part, true. Everything is accessible online, it is on phones, computers, iPads, etc... Sometimes, it isn't so much about the convenience but about the entertainment factor that is tied with these devices.
As for the critics review, it is a shame when there are so many people, gifted with the knowledge of taste that are uprooted by others who simply tried turning their Internet on rather than take the time to send their re IWW to the papers. It is also true, criticism no longer holds the kind of power it used to and that's a loss in itself. Sometimes those reviews are the things that push entertainers to complete better work or inspire them to take their work a step further. We shall see what effects it has on talent in the future.
I disagree with the author's argument that the "decline of the professional critic" is a bad thing. Yes, it is important that artistic endeavors are evaluated from a critical or academic perspective, but it is equally as necessary that the audience gets to share their ideas about the work. While it is true that not everyone will like everything and the increasing criticism on the internet has made the job much more participative, we make theater for our audiences as well as for ourselves. If they do not have an opportunity to review the work and give feedback, how are we to know what they want? I do think that it is not our job to provide the audiences with exactly what they want every time, but the information gleaned from an audience member's review can be a part of a theater's season planning. Secondly, I would imagine that audience members are much more likely to go see a show if they read a positive review about it on a friend's blog than in a newspaper. We trust and know our friends and how their likes and dislikes match up with our own. With a "professional critic" we don't have that information.
This is so true, and something we should be paying attention to. The rise of social networking especially impacts this. When I log into facebook, I often see someone's opinion of a play or movie they just saw. And if I haven't seen it, or read reviews (because really, who reads official reviews anymore?) that opinion, which is probably not well informed or thought out, is the only knowledge I have of that show. And even when we decide to form our own opinion of something, the fact that we read that does stick with us, and causes us to be, even if slightly, less objective when we watch the show.
I completely understand this author’s apprehension as more and more people are able to publicly criticize the arts. Many people will read a review and not pay any attention to who wrote it and the legitimacy of their comments. It is important for people with knowledge and training to make more serious, meaningful judgements on a work. However, I don't think that the ability for the common person to share their opinion is all bad. It's great that people want to talk about the arts. I realize that some people who post online reviews/comments are blabbing from an uneducated standpoint, but I know that there are also people out there who have logical opinions and can back them up. These people should have the opportunity to start a discussion. It's too bad we can't filter out all of the stupid comments, though. All that aside, though, I completely agree with the author's point that the value of an art work should not be judged by its popularity. As we can see in a lot of modern pop culture, popular music or artists aren't necessarily the best examples of good music or talented artists.
While I agree that it's a shame that newspapers are devoting less space to the arts, and that newspapers are dying in general, I do not think it is scary that a wider range of people are criticizing the arts. It's certainly interesting and helpful to read criticisms from the experts, but sometimes you don't want something from an expert's point of view; a lot of the time you want to hear the opinion of someone who's going into a performance with the same background knowledge and experiences as yourself.
This article was laid out very clearly and made some good points. There is a difference between an audience member's opinion and a theatre critic's analysis. A professional theatre critic should be knowledgeable in the craft and have years of experience to reference. Also I agree that a good review cannot be a popularity content and that no one critic should be determining what is good or bad theatre. I would be interested in a site sort of like amazon ratings where audience members could critique the show. They could give different areas different stars and write about it. Then you can see the average stars and how many people voted what. Then you read the best and worst articles. Some of the bad critiques may just be because their ex was the lead or because they had bad seats. Thats the kind of place the average person should share their opinion.
I think everyone can be a critic. Everyone does have their own opinions and has the right to speak them. But this does not mean everyone is an expert in the field. While we all listen to our friends and families or what we hear strangers say on the subway, newspapers do know what they are talking about. They have experience with the arts that an average theatre goer may not. It's true that print media is not as widespread as it once was, but we should still take it into account. This does not mean we have to listen to it, but I think especially the theatre company should consider what the press says. They are giving useful critique. Regardless of the fact that shows do well even if they get bad reviews, they can still use the review to be helpful.
The various points that Kaiser brings up during the course of his article. However, these follow an overall trend that has been taking place within the past few years as the Internet has become a more dominating force in people's lives. We are starting to get our news in a more decentralized manner; looking at a few different news sources in succession on the web to get different takes on the same event, and etc. Criticism has not been immune to this trend, and so we are beginning to get our reviews from various different critics, professional and otherwise. While I can understand the argument that the reviewers who have a background in theater can sometimes provide better information about pieces and can direct people towards pieces that might not have been seen otherwise, or deserve particular note, the argument of putting that power into the general public has it's points as well. Particularly in the fact that since these people, these amateur critics are part of the everyday people who are actually going to see the show, that their words can have more weight. I honestly am not sure where I stand on this issue, but it will be interesting to see if the current trends towards the general masses continue, or if the critics are able to regain their stature as the authority on theater and other art fields.
Ultimately, I think it is each person's responsibility to evaluate the source of his information, be it a review or an article. While it is true that in the digital age it is much easier for anyone, whether familiar with the theatre or not, to share their opinion on a given production, they have a right to that opinion, just as every other person on the internet has a right to not listen. To me it sounds as if Michael Kaiser is trying to control the information released about productions by discrediting any and all "non-professional" theatre critics, something that I think is a bit petty.
The problem isn't the amount of content out there, it's the lack of qualification to produce it. Artists are having the same problem with the proliferation of technology that makes digital art easy, but, then again, professional photographers in 1895 said that photography had been similarly affected when film that could be loaded sans-darkroom came out, and nobody today would agree with that. It's awesome to google information about theatre and other things as a consumer, and find a wide variety of opinions, particularly those from people with similar perspectives in general. It's our responsibilities as readers to look at from where/whom the information is coming and what their qualifications are.
Kaiser makes some solid points about why art critiques in print have changed and/or disappeared in recent years. There are simply far fewer people reading print (newspapers), and even those who do may not see any arts critiques written. When you read an art critic in a newspaper or magazine, it is assumed that the writer must have a certain degree of expertise in the field. While I may not agree with the review- and believe me, NOT every art critic is perfect- I automatically have a greater respect for that opinion over the layman. And when it comes to the blog or online review, it can be difficult to distinguish the professional critic from the amateur, but the sum of those amateur opinions may be more compelling than the 1 expert, occasionally.
I disagree with Kaiser in saying that the decline of the professional critic is a bad thing. While I understand that "expert" opinions are great when critiquing art, the best thing about opinions are that no one has to be right. Just because someone knows tons about a certain subject does not mean that their opinion is any more valid than someone else's. At least, certainly not when it comes to reacting to art.
To say that "amateur" critics' opinions aren't as valid as professional critics' opinions is almost absurd. And it seems like Kaiser has forgotten what the mission of art is. As President of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts I would hope that Kaiser recognizes that "learned" theatre-goers are only a very small portion of those who view theatre. The thing about art is that it has the potential for anyone to enjoy it--not just "professionals". And I would hope that any performing arts company is aiming for it's pieces to be enjoyed by anybody.
I think Kaiser needs to put more trust in the average theatre-goer to decide for themselves what they think is good or not. Expecting that an "amateur" will instantly choose the lowest-common-denominator is the wrong thing to think. There should be trust in an audience to decide for themselves what they like--and just because they aren't a "professional" doesn't mean that they'll instantly choose the most low-brow piece. And even if they do--who cares? Why should anyone tell anybody else not to like something?
I don't know how I feel about this article. It's completely true that media is certainly taking a turn toward the internet, which has its pros and cons. On one hand, people have the opportunity to express their opinions alongside professional critics and open up the subject for further intellectual discussion. On the other hand, it could also become a place for people to just talk smack or say outrageous things just for the sake of saying it. Which brings me to ask, what qualifies someone as a professional paying job as a critic when there are people posting opinions just as substantive as theirs, and doing it voluntarily and for free?
I also disagree with some of the author's points. Just because someone is not a time tested critic doesn't mean that they are incapable of providing invaluable criticism. I forget the show but Jed shared this with us in directing II. There was a director who's Broadway show was stuck in preview. There was just something missing that he couldn't place. When talking to a woman in the laundry room of his apartment building, who had seen the show the night before, she indicated a slight change to the script that fixed all of the director's qualms about the show. They opened the ext day and had a fantastic run.
I think that the fact that the "professional critic" is said to be dying is kind of a strange one. It seems that what makes someone a professional is the lens through which they evaluate and the forum in which they evaluate. Also, however less concrete, the audience of the criticism is also a factor.
Because the medium of communication is shifting, so is what is considered a professional. Many blogs are not considered industry standard and contain "professional" information that may not be available elsewhere.
Post a Comment