What’s the function of a critic?
On the level of the university or national publications, that’d be someone who analyzes the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work — or, for that matter, a fad, philosophy or social movement. In terms of popular media, you’re more like a professional poison taster. “’Avatar II’ sucks … aggghh! Don’t see it!” But most real critics (even that late Roger Ebert) hate that part of the job --- and only begrudgingly do it when they have to. Thumbs up, thumbs down. Pfft! I’m not the Emperor Nero.
What education should a competent critic have?
If you’re an English major or have a degree in journalism, if can’t hurt – but it doesn’t make you a critic. It’s not like the Wizard of Oz gives you a critic certificate. Plenty of writers without specialized degrees were (and still are) great critics. Plenty of credentialled critics don’t know what they’re talking about.
A critic can make or break a show or an exhibit. Is that right?
That’s not been my experience, at least on the local level.
Has criticism changed over the years? How?
The primary change is economic. If you’re considering a professional career in the 21st century, blacksmithing or buggy-whip manufacturing would be much more lucrative. From the standpoint of pure ideas, it’s gotten harder to confine yourself to the realm of pure ideas. Political gatekeepers have crashed the party – including PC gatekeepers on the left, and right-wing gatekeepers on the right. What you say CAN hurt you now … and that’s all I’m going to say on the subject.
Do personal biases interfere with a critic’s job?
I’d say they’re part of the job description … at least for now. Silicon Valley has created AI systems that generate amazing art. AI critics are probably on the horizon in the not-too-distant future. Until then critics are not robots. Critics are human and, by definition, not objective. I appreciate certain critics because of their unique points of view.
Should the critic of an opening take their time writing their review — to allow the performance to settle-in? Maybe even attend later performances?
Not usually. Your initial response is your most authentic response, Second-guessing yourself is a bad intellectual habit.
Some critics are also arts reporters. Does your arts coverage inform your reviews?
It can. The more you know, the better you write. Art reporting never hurts art criticism. On the other hand, going beyond the demands of a legitimate article — you can research something to death – to the point where it’s next to impossible to have a genuine response to what’s on stage or in the gallery. You already know the consensus of opinion on the show and the talent behind it. You know so much you’ve already written the review in your mind before you even see the show! When you get to that point, you’re just rehashing groupthink, not offering your unbiased opinion. That’s lazy, dishonest and the opposite of real criticism.
Here are a few of the usual suspects from a very long list ,,, Dorothy Parker. Harlan Ellison. Roger Ebert, Robert Hughes, Joan Altabe, John Lahr, Frank Rich, Anthony Lane. My father. Su Byron. Kevin Dean. And everyone here, of course.
Without doing a specific breakdown, I’d say experience, knowledge, honesty, passion and curiosity makes each critic special. That said, it doesn’t mean they’re always right!. Just because I respect a critic, that doesn’t mean I always agree with them. Dorothy Parker hated “Winnie the Pooh.” Harlan Ellison hated “2001.” Pauline Kael hated “A Clockwork Orange.” I still respect those critics. I still love those books and movies.
Thanks to social media, everyone really is a critic. What impact does that have on contemporary criticism?
Free criticism kills the market for professional criticism. Who wants to buy a cow when they can get the milk for free? Few do. Increasingly, they’re at a national level.
Is the
whole concept of criticism outdated?
As an
intellectual discipline, never. As a career? I’d need a time machine to answer
that question.
Posts
.jpg)