To Reference Hamlet, Or Not To Reference Hamlet: That Is The Question: Concerning The Proper Place of Public Criticism in the Performing Arts
I’ve been watching a lot of theatre lately and, on occasion, writing about it. So, this seems as good a time as any to discuss (and hopefully solicit some opinions) on the question of the proper role of public criticism in the performing arts, especially in small-market performing arts communities like Ottawa (well, technically, Ottawa may not be a small-market but it very often feels that way).
My previous posts about the productions I have seen recently are representative of my take on the question of public criticism right now. So far, I provide a very brief summary / assessment of the production, highlight a successful aspect of the play, either recommend or not recommend seeing it, and then carry on to discuss some aspect of the performance which I found engaging — so far, usually a theme in the script. If it turns out that I don’t have anything good to say, I simply don’t say anything at all.
Now, I am not wholly satisfied with this approach. Good theatre, on my view, is impossible without good criticism and what I am offering is not good criticism. I suppose the hidden premise in my reasoning that is holding me back from writing good criticism is the fact that people very rarely respond positively to negative criticism or learn from it — especially when it is made publicly — even if it is constructive. So there seems little point in offering it. Good criticism takes a lot of time and effort and, if it simply disappears into the vacuum of wounded pride, it seems to me that the time could be better spent doing other things — like making good (insert performing art of your choice here). In other words, lead by example.
So, I am left with the question: is effective public criticism even possible? The key word here is “effective.” Of course, good public criticism is possible but, if it has no effect on the quality of work being produced, it seems to me pretty pointless. I suppose good even-handed criticism may help create a more discerning audience and that may indirectly lead to better work being produced, however, it could as easily drive audiences away from the work being produced — especially, if the producers of the work are not also evolving along with the audience.
The other question that springs to mind concerns whether or not a practitioner of a particular performing art should even engage in formal public criticism. For me, there is no issue here. Who else but a fellow practitioner would be in a position to provide insightful and intelligent criticism? It is the very idea driving the practice of “peer review.” I should also say this is not meant to imply that a non-practitioner is incapable of good criticism because, of course, they are. I guess, on my view, a genuine critic of a particular performing art really is just another practitioner in that art, even if he or she limits herself to intelligent, even-handed criticism of what is produced. Indeed, the best criticism very often is a kind of work of art in its own right.
Even so, there are a lot of folks out there who think practitioners shouldn’t also be critics and I suspect they would probably cite concerns about impartiality to justify this view. If this is their only objection, it isn’t compelling to me. So long as a practitioner does not review his or her own work and is up-front about his or her role in the community, there really shouldn’t be any kind of problem. Really, when you think about it, if this standard of impartiality were employed for, say, political criticism, I doubt a single talking head could be found anywhere in broadcast news. If peer review is good enough for academics, the professions, and politics, surely it won’t be so bad for the performing arts as well.
Thoughts? Rebuttals? Recipes for low fat dip?
For more posts like this, click here.
Wow, great post. I’ve often refrained from critiquing other work on my blog because I worry that it might affect my future employability.
nancykenny
March 11, 2009
Thanks! For sure. It’s very much a risk and probably the main reason why people are so reluctant to be honest with each other.
sterlinglynch
March 12, 2009
Nancy, I was thinking more about your comment and it occurred to me that it is very unfortunate that we are right to worry about criticizing our way out of work. After all, any of the performing arts involve some level of collaboration and the key to successful collaboration is mutual and respectful criticism — both positive and negative. If future employers are so sensitive that they might not hire us because of something we said about their work, that suggest to me that they don’t really get the creative process at all. And that’s bad new for the arts if these kinds of people are running the show.
sterlinglynch
March 12, 2009
For a very thoughtful post on the same subject, from someone involved in the Ottawa scene, check out:
http://jessicaruano.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/appreciating-arts-criticism/
The distinction between review and criticism is very helpful,
sterlinglynch
March 12, 2009
Another reason that practicioners shouldn’t be critics, in my mind, is that practicioners are often too close to the work. I think a critic needs to be a bridge between the artists (who know what the heck they are on about) and the general audience (who may like or dislike something but may not be able to put their finger on why). I find theatre reviews by theatre artists tend to be insular and celebrate pretentious twaddle while panning shows if they drift too close to “mere entertainment”.
Of course in calgary we don’t get much criticism (the herald gave all four playwrites plays the maximum four stars – that’s what I call discernment). And our awards systems are equally a fiasco.
But as a former volunteer adjudicator for community shows in town I totally hear you on the hurt-feelings-combined-with-no-interest-in-growth response thing.
rostockrose
March 12, 2009
That’s for the great reply.
Your point is well made. Practitioners are very often insular — maybe even more so than other communities — so it is a definite risk. Of course, this is true of any person who adopts the critic role. My hope is that any person who wants to engage in on-going and meaningful criticism would be self-aware enough to wear their preferences on their sleeves and also to be able to try and understand any given work based on its own terms.
sterlinglynch
March 12, 2009
I also think criticism is a necessary for a healthy arts community. The more people engaged in the process the better it will be. As an audience member I also appreciate when something is brought to my attention via a critic that I would not have seen otherwise. The local performance at the Elmdale Tavern was one such case.
As to criticism, and yours specifically, it sounds to me like you are trying to do too much with your critiques. This, in my view, is a problem with critics in general. There is an attempt to provide constructive criticism for the performer(s), a recommendation or warning to potential audience members, and an attempt to genuflect on themes raised in the performance. These in fact, are very different goals and therefore kinds of writing. When a critic tries to do all these things they end up often working at cross purposes.
Constructive criticism for performers, in order to be internalized and acted on, has to focus more on the positive aspects and ways to make these aspects better rather than negative. The tone is very different. I’m not saying sugar coat the truth, but just realize that the approach is and has to be different. Otherwise, as you say, anything positive will be immersed in a quagmire of wounded ego. This is just a fact of human nature.
To write a review for potential audiences, you have to ignore the artists themselves. Be honest and unmerciful. In this case you are not trying to help the performers create a better production (though if they are wise they will at least read what people have taken the time to express). Your sole purpose, however, is either to recommend or pan the performance and be very clear as to why. That’s it.
Discussing themes raised by a performance is once again a very different kind of writing. It is not criticism at all. I would argue, while very interesting, this kind of discussion just muddles the objectives of criticism when it is interspersed with critiques. It’s almost always the critics own take on an issue and should be just presented as that in a separate article.
So decide which of these activities you want to do and do that. You can of course do all three. Just don’t try to do all three in the same post/article/review. Hope this helps.
Wayne
Wayne C
March 12, 2009
I think we are on the same page that there are different kinds of writing being referred to in my post. As I mentioned, I don’t think the theme-exploration style of writing by itself really counts as good criticism — in some instances it is not criticism at all. I do think it can be a part of good criticism because teasing out missed themes and implications is an important role of good criticism. For example, if a critic is unsatisfied with a production’s take on a text, s/he has an obligation to show and discuss the other possible themes to justify that claim.
I also agree that any skilled writer must be aware of his or her audience. I am not convinced there is an important difference between writing for “the audience” and “the performers”. For a critic, they are both “the audience” of his or her writing. To ignore the artists, as you suggest, would be as inappropriate as ignoring the fact that “the audience” includes persons who might be specifically offended by certain themes in the reviewed play and the critic’s own piece. We both agree a good writer must take into consideration his audience and, for me, a critic’s audience will always include the artists who are reviewed. The artists are of course not the whole of the audience — insularity must be avoided — but they are a part of it too. Ultimately, I think criticism that takes into consideration the fact the artist is a part of the audience will be of much greater benefit to all members of the audience.
I think your advice about how to provide criticism to performers is sound advice for a director but a director has a different role in the process form the critic.
Or, so I think so far ….
sterlinglynch
March 12, 2009
Fair enough. Than we disagree on this point, which is fine. In my view a review’s objective should be to pan or recommend the performance to the public. This is where the critics loyalties, in my view should lie. Anything else should happen coincidentally rather than by design and is secondary to this function. In my view, where reviewers go awry is precisely where they assume they are educating the performers in some way or even that the performers will read it. This in turn creates an attachment which often distorts the review. I would prefer it if a reviewer would comment on all aspects of the performance (good and bad) and then recommend it or not. As long as they are honest, give clear reasons for liking or disliking it, have a certain degree of humility as it is just an opinion after all, and are unmerciful when required. I will find it useful. To do this one cannot worry about coddling the fragile egos of those involve or search for positive aspects when they don’t exist. That is not the role of the reviewer and it does a disservice to their audience.
Wayne C
March 12, 2009
I think we are much closer together on this question than you may think.
I agree with 98% of what you say here and am only cautious about the language. I, for one, don’t equate “educate” with “coddle egos”; I equate “educate” with what you write here:
“I would prefer it if a reviewer would comment on all aspects of the performance (good and bad) and then recommend it or not. As long as they are honest, give clear reasons for liking or disliking it, have a certain degree of humility as it is just an opinion after all, and are unmerciful when required.”
If I gave any impression that I thought good criticism is anything but what you write here then that’s my mistake. My only mild concern in what you have written is your choice of the word “unmerciful”. It seems too strong and not exactly right. After all, it is the ultimate act of mercy to tactfully and intelligently let someone know what they are doing — or what they might see — is not a success. Moreover, I suspect the non-artist members of the audience will also benefit more from “merciful” criticism rather than “unmerciful” criticism.
sterlinglynch
March 12, 2009
Criticism is a difficult thing. For a society that puts so much emphasis on inoffensiveness as ours does, it tends to raise people’s hackles, no matter how slight. However, I think wayne is right: in order for there to be a healthy arts scene, criticism is needed. I think to Andrew Cohen’s comment that even the most mediocre solo at the NAC can garer a standing ovation. This neither helps anyone improve, and in all likelihood, angers a lot of performers, since most know when they’ve put in a good performance or not.
That being said, I think many aspects of your approach are sound: find positive things (presuming they are there) and keep your criticism constructive and offer some concrete ideas for improvement, it goes over reasonably well, provided you don’t provide a shopping list of criticisms.
Erinn
March 12, 2009
Very relevant to this discussion –
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=1593
This reviewer takes a very stauch stance that they work for the audience (“Is it worth my 45 bucks?”) and not at all for the improvement of the theatre.
rostockrose
March 13, 2009
Great link. Thanks. Very relevant.
I think it is pretty childish of the director to call the critic and make an ass of himself but I think it would be equally ass-ish of a punter to do it. Now having said that, I think the reviewer is being a little over-sensitive. If she wants to give strong reviews, she must accept there will be strong reactions. What if she met the director at a dinner party? Of course the director has a right to reply in a tactful and respectful manner. If her review is not tactful and respectful, then he has less obligation to be tactful and respectful. He would of course be better off being tactful and respectful no matter what.
I think my point remains the same: I can’t see how a sensible and considered answer to the $45 buck question wouldn’t also be a benefit to the performers. After all, how are we suppose to come to understand and assess her judgment, if she doesn’t provide sensible and considered reasons justifying her recommendations.
The hidden premise that seems to motivate the “performers are not part of my audience” line of argument is the assumption that good criticism must be hurtful and insensitive. I don’t buy it. It just seems lazy to me.
sterlinglynch
March 13, 2009
[...] http://sterlinglynch.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/to-reference-hamlet-or-not-to-reference-hamlet-that-is... [...]
Theatre Criticism and the Promotion of the Arts « Many Faces of Wayne
March 23, 2009
[...] you will see from my reviews, I’ve since come around to both Jessica and Sterling’s approach to criticism. Thank you both for informing my thinking on this issue. I am now one of the [...]
My Latest Gig « Many Faces of Wayne
June 23, 2009