Howlround: I was a theater critic for five years. Then I got better.
Okay, that’s a cheap shot. The fact is, I’m thankful for my time as the lead theater critic for Seattle Weekly from 1995 to 2000. For one thing, it was the beginning of my life as a paid writer. Playwriting is a tremendously impractical way of making a living, and back in that pre-blog decade, arts journalism actually looked like a real career. While making money from plays remains tricky, it’s positively rock-solid compared to the terrifying uncertainty my friends in the world of journalism face.
5 comments:
I highly respect the author of this article. I completely agree when he says that critics shouldn't be discouraged from being artists and vice versa. If you were ever on a particular side, how could you possibly understand where they are coming from. The knowledge you would gain from having both experiences would greatly open your mind to new perspectives of theatre as well. I also wonder though how things would have turned out if he had offered the artistic director his script. I don't see why he couldn't be both playwright and critic. It seems like being both would just lead to a thorough and careful evaluation of the process of his own work.
It is really hard to simply have an opinion and even more so to have an opinion about someone's work. The author is correct, with the increase of social media and blogs, it is difficult to sift through the numerous reviews to find one that will give you an accurate or useful review. However that is the way we are going. Being any kind of critic will be difficult because there will always be something that you will watch and won't like or agree with and someone that you will offend. However that goes with the territory of producing and performing; you get reviewed. Also I don't see how you can be a good theatre critic without knowing the basics about the elements of theatre. I can't be an archeological critic because I don't know the technical basics about the field, same as someone who knows nothing about directing, acting or design won't give a solid technical review. It would simply be an article of opinion with no basis.
I, like Jacquelyn, really respect this author. I think theatre critics can very easily be turned into the bad guy because of the "unfair" feedback they give the shows that we work on. However, this article reminds us that not all critics are like that, and that the reason they do this job is because they, like the artists, have a love for theater that they want to express. I agree with the author that Critics should also be artists because without the understanding of the production process, the words a critic has to offer hold absolutely no weight. I wonder if any of us will end up critics after we finish school. It seems like it could be a very interesting job...
Its interesting when the author said that people say artist shouldn't be critics. I get that he means like actual paid and writing critics, but aren't we all critics? We just don't get paid and aren't vocal about it (maybe). To me that sounds like the same thing. We form opinions about each others work all the time; Its kind of human nature to.
I feel like hating on critics is sort of like hating on lawyers: yes, what they do may make you angry for whatever reason, but they're an important part of their process. I also believe that, provided they can maintain a level of professionalism, we need more critics who are also artists. That is, not negatively reviewing someplace that has not given you a job. I'm not sure why it isn't a requirement for a professional critic to have some background in whatever medium they are critiquing, as one would think it would give a very important perspective.
Post a Comment