Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Who Trains the Critic?
HowlRound: While working as a bookseller at the Harvard COOP last fall, I found myself the master of the writing section. I was given permission to order stock for any section that needed it. Happy to conduct this search on company time, I began looking up books on writing. My ulterior motive? Finding any books that could help me learn more about writing arts criticism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think that there are two ways that an aspiring critic could prepare for the line of work that they do. The first way would be to see every piece of there that they can. The more they see the more diverse of a mental library of shows they will have, and then the better they will be able to critic the performance they have just seen. The second way is to after they see a show they should write a review, and have their friends and family read it. This will give them practice putting their thoughts into writing. Whether an aspiring critic takes this advice or not I think it is most important for anyone who wants to work in the arts to see as much art as they can. Just like the critic you need to build this diverse mental library that you can go to to see what works and what does not.
I think that this article brings up an interesting point. How do critics become critics? How do they earn the right and gain the knowledge to validate their opinion on the entirety of a show. I think the author mention a good point that a lot of artists don't take critics seriously because they feel that they don't really know their crafts. I think that this can be a great tip for those wanting to be good critics. In order to truly understand a performance, one must understand what they team was going for in all aspects. I can see this being proven in our own program. Being a freshman Design and Production major, I have all different types of classes with all different types of theatre artists from those who will be scenic designers and technical directors to stage managers and costume designers. By working with all of these different types of people and getting an education that teaches you aspects of each, it makes you better understand what their jobs might entail and what their process looks like. I think that when a person gets that knowledge, they have a better chance of giving a critic that will mean something.
I have always looked at critics’ reviews of theater pieces as a good idea of how the audience will also perceive the work. I understand the rule of who are they to judge if they really don’t know the craft, but for the case of theater I believe the magic most often comes from the fact that it needs to look effortless. I feel when the work looks effortless, all elements of a show fall into place and a coherent and strongly moving story is told that completely captivates the audience while they are seated. At the same time I feel like a nice sentence here or there in the article of how they felt a specific element added to the overall work never hurts.
All of that being said, I never had really thought about before who teaches critics to be critics. It didn’t surprise me that there wasn’t many books on the subject because I have always seen being a good critic is a skill trade that should be treated with some level of elitism. If everyone could suddenly being an amazing critic audience members might find it harder to let go and enjoy the work in front of them because they are always looking at things through a critical lens.
I find this way of thinking particularly interesting because it is true: someone who is not trained in a craft should not be a person that you hold close enough to have opinions that change how you perceive a show. If art critics are not trained in art or theatre, how can they be expected to speak intelligibly for at least some time in the same way that theatres artists are expected to be better versed in theatre terminology later in their education than they are at the beginning? I think it is worth noting that many artists give critics’ reviews a great deal of power over how they view their own performance, and really, all that a review indicates is a general guide for public opinion on the show. An audience member does not have to be trained or well versed in theatre knowledge to enjoy a show, so if we view a critic from that lens, he or she represents any audience member who would come to see a show on a given night. This means that the review should be more about entertainment value than overall artistic value.
Reading this changed my perspective on theater criticism, actually. I too was one of the people who see critics almost a charciature, or failed artists. But, then thinkng about it, so much of my craft, and the thing sI enjoy relies on critics. When I go to see a show, I will always check the New York Times review for it. I won't go to a poorly reviewed show, abd that goes for movies, too. If your tomato isn't red, don't expect me to go. However, I really have never thought about the education involved.
i suppose it probably has less to do with training than having an understanding of theater and an eye for it, and that's what makes a good critic. You have to have a passion, and if you don't you shouldn't be there, because critics a lot of the time are the deciding factor for whether a show lives or dies.
What I thought was actaully more interesting than the article was a comment underneath from a man who got an MFA in theater criticism from Columbia. He mentions how most people were condescending to him until they needed help editing their show or were in a fix. And I think this is how most critics live. Underrespected, until it truly counts.
I don't think it is necessarily extremely important for a critic to know the ins and outs of the craft to give criticisms. In my mind, the critic operates as the window into what the audience is thinking. As a designer, we may have made something that we believe to be very representative of the idea we hope to create. The director and TD and crew agree and we go ahead on production. But opening night, if the audience doesn't know what you were trying to convey, you have not done your job. A critic should not be a snobbish, above all type. A critic should offer constructive criticisms based on their observations that can be relatable to the average audience member.
I agree with others on this topic. A critic does not have to be so in depth with the subject to be a critic. A critic shoul;d be thought of as just another audience member. I mean, if you are only looking to appeal to the critic and the rest of the audience doesnt get it, then youre doing something wrong. A critic is someone who by watching the show can criticize on any part of it . Now this is not to say that a critic needs to be a snoodie snob that doesnt have space in their heart for being super mean, but a critic should show some educated criticism for construction.
Post a Comment