HowlRound: During the Critiquing Criticism discussion this March at Humana, (moderated by HowlRound’s Polly Carl and live streamed on #NEWPLAY TV), I felt a familiar rush of anger. Here were arrayed before us a group of prominent theater critics from a variety of web and print publications, as well as an artistic director of a well-respected theater company, and someone who worked at a major theater in play development. The journalists ranged in age from their twenties through fifties, and the discussion focused on the decline of theater criticism in print publications—both column-inches and dedicated theater critics being cut, and the tendency of print reviews to be forced into Consumer Report-esque blurbs, informing you whether or not this show was worth your money, as opposed to the lengthy critical essays of the past. There were spats between the internet generation and the older folks, regarding the merits of social media—Facebook, Twitter, blogs like this site, etc.—and whether they were an enhancement to popular theatrical discourse. This was certainly a lively and interesting conversation, so why was I angry?
1 comment:
This article asks the question, “Why aren’t there more theatre practitioners among theatre critics?” The author compares theatre to other critiqued things, such as sports, books and economics, which are critiqued by their participants. She suggests that many artists may refrain from critiquing other theatrical art for fear that they have a conflict of interest. I have another theory as to why theatre artists rarely publish critiques of shows.
Theatre is a very subjective art form. It has no definite point, rather the point is whatever the audience wants it to be. When you watch a theatrical performance it is up to you what you pay attention to and get out of it. Some audience members go to the theatre expecting high art and exquisite and well thought out scenery and costumes. Others go to critique the actors and various acting choices. Still others go simply to be entertained by the pretty lights and the pretty people under them.
Theatre artists, more so than other audience goers, often have a very defined set of things they want to get out of a production. A lighting designer is going to be hyperconscious of the way the actors are lit and the various decisions that were made in the design, just as a director will pay extra special attention to the use of space and directing choices. The typical theatre goer on the other hand is not particularly conscious of these types of choices, and the question is, do they really want to be? Theatre artists are particularly interested in the critiques of other theatre people because thinking about things in such depth will help them improve their own art. But perhaps the type of critiques that theatre makers are wont to produce are not what the typical theatregoer is looking for.
Post a Comment