Sunday, November 27, 2011
On Michael Kaiser and Citizen Critics
Createquity.: Responses are all over the original post and the blogosphere; Andy Horwitz has one of the best over at Culturebot. You don’t need to think too hard to guess at my reaction; after all, I’m on record as saying that I think citizen critics (though I prefer the term “curators”) are the potential saviors of the artistic marketplace. However, that’s not to say that everyone’s opinion matters equally in every context. I believe in experts, I just think that newspaper editors shouldn’t be the only ones who get to decide who the experts are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This author may be reacting a little extremely to Kaiser's article, but I do certainly agree with his idea that people should all have the chance to become participants in public critical discussion forums. This goes along with what I said in my comments on Kaiser's article. Those people who are non-experts but are educated, considerate, and intelligent should be able to share their opinions and ignite discussion. There needs to be some way to bar out the people who are going to make biased, un-supported, rude comments that would not result in a constructive conversation or analysis. But how do you go about doing this? As long as everyone can access the internet, everyone will be able to post their opinions online. It's the responsibility of the person looking to read about a work of art, theatre, dance, etc. to make sure that they are basing their judgements on the comments of people who are trustworthy and intelligent. This is not always easy to tell, but it's important to try to judge the legitimacy of a source before going out and sharing it or basing your own opinions on it.
It seems to me that Michael Kaiser is one of those very disagreeable people that takes himself far too seriously and likes to be elitist about the world of art. Those kinds of people are so frustrating!! If art is only allowed to be judged by a tiny pretentious class of elitists who are "appropriately educated" then the art is relatively useless. It should be able to and be encouraged to provoke a response from someone who knows nothing about the context AND someone who knows everything about the context. I completely agree with the author of this blog post. How dare he call regular people weighing in with their opinions about art "a scary trend?" It's a good thing that all kinds of people are talking about art! That's something that should be vehemently applauded. Forums about art are great. The more people talk about art and their reactions to it the better.
While I think there will always be a place for the professional critic, I find more and more that the glory days of the critic are long over, and it's there own fault. There are some areas I turn to for reviews; movies and plays are not one of these. I understand that a critic has to have some kind of consistency, but holding everything to the same standard is an issue within itself since not everything really compares in anyway against each other.
I think that it's silly to try and determine who's allowed to have an opinion on a production and who isn't. Giving someone the authority to decide which opinions are valid and which are not potentially opens a door to manipulation that I don't like. Ultimately it is the job of the reader to determine which reviews they're going to listen to and which they aren't. It's also good to point out that people have been sharing their opinions on art forever, at dinner parties etc. One of a show's most useful assets is the word of mouth appeal. I think Kaiser's offended mostly because now their words are not just shared behind closed doors, but that now they are staring him in the face.
I agree with Moss--the citizen critic is one of the most important factors in saving the arts. Just because someone isn't an expert in a certain field does not mean that they're opinion is of any less worth than a professional's.
I also agree that there's not much use in fighting the rise of internet critiques. This is the way that society is progressing--is this really an issue that needs to be controlled? I think Kaiser's fears stem from the lack of control that internet critiques present.
What determines whether or not someone is an expert? I don't think there is such a thing as an expert critic. You can have a background in art, music, theatre, and dance but that doesn't mean you're the authority on those topics. No matter how academic someone is, their critiques are always somewhat opinionated or shaped by their opinions. At that point they are just a person with an opinion. Just because someone writes for a newspaper doesn't mean that bloggers' opinions are less valid. Both categories of critic can be equally pedantic and narrow on a topic. Art is subjective and thus should be subjected to a myriad of opinions. I think bloggers are great and are doing a lot of good, not just in art but in news outlets and other mediums. Trying to put critics in a hierarchy of validity is unnecessary and silences voices that in some cases really need to be heard.
On one hand, no, art should not be judged by just anyone for value. But I think the internet reviews are important because when people want to see art and want to know what to see, they do not care how much some guy from NY liked the play if all their friends think it is good. The internet is a great source for reviews from, as Kaiser puts it, the lowest common denominator. But that is the general population. When people look for reviews they read ones that come from people who write with the same skill level and vocabulary as themselves, and if that group likes a piece, odds are that the person will like it. A person is not more likely to enjoy a ballet because someone who can critique the technique says it is good. So Kaiser and Moss should just lay off and let people say what they think. Patron who really care what expert critics have to say will go to newspapers or online newspapers instead of blogs.
Post a Comment