Theatre | The Guardian: Theatre critics need to think harder about whether their own ethnicity and relative privilege means they are the right people to write about certain topics, new guidelines drawn up by the union Equity argue.
It has published recommendations for theatre critics when they write about race, urging them to guard against unconscious bias and also consciously consider the relevance of race or ethnicity in their reviews.
3 comments:
I understand that there is no such thing as objectively reviewing art. The very nature of being a critic is walking the line between objectivity and subjectivity, creating your own unique perspective on whatever it is you are critiquing. To use that statement as a crutch to be very open about biases is a problem. I also understand that it was not until last spring that a lot of people had the opportunity to sit down with themselves and think about their own prejudices and learn how that is affecting what they do or say. We are all learning, and it is a gradual process instead of being something that happens overnight. However, much like the objectivity crutch, this can be used in a similar way. There has to be an effort to do better. As there is a collective attempt – or at least I’m hoping there is a collective sense here – to make theater more inclusive it is worth exploring what that means for the people talking about the work being put out there.
I honestly never thought about what race a critic is until I read this article. Looking back I can think of some reviews where I was like "oooo that was not nice to say" and definitely would have even more of those reactions if I knew what the race of each critic was. I think critic reviews are already super subjective so it is kinda crazy to expect a critic to write all of their life experiences down before their review. I think people just need to keep in mind when they are reading these reviews that it is all subjective even if it is written in an objective tone. I also think it is important for a critic to also take a step back and correct their own biases and be aware of their standings in society. Frankly I think critic reviews are stupid and every review I have ever read I have disagreed with. That's the beauty behind art and that is what allows me to thoroughly enjoy "Robot" the movie while critics hate it. Taking a step back and perhaps even having their reviews read by others is the best way for critics to make sure they don't say something stupid.
Critics hold a lot of power, especially if they are working for a reputable paper. They are literally the gatekeepers who get to decide what new works makes it into “good art.” This power comes with the responsibility to do you research and give ever play a fair assessment. There is a history of plays by, about, and for women, BIPOC folks, LGBT+ community members, that get looked over, because they are not for older straight cis white men, and that has been the majority of theater critics in the US and the UK for too long. If you are a white man, you do not have the lived experience of a women or a BIPOC, and work that centers those experience will be unrelatable. That should not serve as an indictment of the work. The quality of the work is completely independent of who it centers in its story. White male theater critics should work to unlearn their implicit biases, to make sure they are fully informed about the dramaturgical impact of the work they’re critiquing, and step aside when there are critics who are better suited to review the work. Otherwise there is no room for them.
Post a Comment