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 journalistic coverage inform your
review?
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.
