Excerpted from “Not everybody's a critic” by Richard Schickel, LA Times, May 20, 2007
Criticism — and humble cousin, reviewing — is not democratic activity but an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond hasty, instinctive opinions. Required: disciplined taste; historical, theoretical knowledge, fairly deep sense of body of work. Opinion least important; highest business is to initiate intelligent dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I would like to see reviewers and critics distinquish, more often, between making witticisms and making criticism. I could use less of the former and more of the later, in general. Critics need to guard against self-indulgence just as much as do other writers and artists, and recognizing one's own self-indulgence often requires some training, as well as experience.
A few of our local critics attempt to make up for training and experience by being 'writerly' or 'witty,' neither of which serve the supposed purpose of a review or critical essay, when they are ungrounded in a clear function.
I got no problem with "instinctive opinions" in the appropriate realm. That is to say, I expect the Oregonion to strive for a more in-depth analysis (which ends up being hit or miss, but leaning toward hits). I expect the Willie Weekster to offer an "instinctive opinion" (never fails). And I've come to expect Portland Mercury to waffle between the two, though at least it devotes regular space to the stage. What can be said for the Tribune's scatter-gun theater coverage? Well, its theater-related human-interest stories are probably more its strength.
I think there's room for all styles, and actually it's probably to our benefit to have more points of entry than solely academic dissertation.
i heard that the columbian is no longer going to cover pdx stage.
they have a "vancouver-centric"
editor.
what about just out?
how are they on theatre?
i never see any theatre stuff in the MERC.
i am just missing it?
i know for a fact that local papers like the lake oswego review could not care less about theatre coverage.
it's a shame.
RE; Merc:
Yeah, you're just missing it.
though the listings are slim, they alwways run a 1/4-page review -- i can't remember the last issue that didn't have one. you may debate the quality of the reviews, but they are at least dedicating the space for more than a blurb.
But you who seek to give merit fame,
And justly bear a Critic's noble name,
Be sure yourself and your own reach to know,
How far your Genius, Taste, and Learning go,
Launch not beyond your depth, but be descreet,
And mark the point where Sense and Dullness meet.
dear blog master:
what about a thread that posts only reactions to local critics?
i know at least a dozen folks who have written letters to a critic in the last couple of months -- but while the critic publishes his/her opinions for all to see, the poor letter writer has only the satisfaction of reaching an audience of one.
a thread where we can all give our opinions (hopefully dignified and insightful -- unlike many of the theatre writers themselves) seems like a natural.
that way, threads about specific shows can remain about said shows.
frankly, often critics make blatant factual errors, and these are never publicly acknowledged (as editors, despite declarations to the contrary, rarely publish admonitions about their staff) -- and this would be a perfect forum in which to address these (and other types) of transgressions.
what say you, followspot?
We happily print letters in response to our reviews when they are reasonably short and come with a name attached. Barring personal notes, I haven't received a letter from anyone but my pet incoherent, anonymous lunatic since April. That's not a good thing. Send in the letters! As long as you say they're for publication, I'll send them on to the editors.
As someone who has sent angry tirades to critics and regretted it -- like the email rashly sent to an ex-boyfriend at 3:00 in the morning -- let me suggest that there NOT be a forum for letters to wayward critics. Trust me, it's better to move on and keep that letter to yourself. Save yourself and us from having to read it.
It seems like I've been reading more angry letters to the editor/critic lately, and honestly, it's just embarrassing. I can understand taking things personally but I wish people would choose their battles a bit more. People used to say how much they hated Steffen Silvis, and now they're lamenting the absence of an intelligent, well-informed critic. Suck it up, take the criticism and let it drive your work forward, I say.
Okay, end of rant.
Yeah, I've embarrassed myself with a couple of angry letters to critics. I sent a couple of good, articulate critiques to Stephan, but I harshed on his successor unnecessarily. I regretted the tantrum. It made me look smaaaaaaaaaalll.
You know, it's kind of funny: I remember well the love/hate relationship the theatre community had with Steffen. Buy a drink or two with anyone who did Portland theatre in the 90s, bring up the subject, and you're in for a long night. In that time, I've seen some decent reviews, some stupid ones, and some puzzling ones, but I very seldom hear people note Rich Wattenberg's intelligent, informed, and generally rather genteel reviews. He knows what he's talking about, and, when he doesn't like something, he doesn't stoop to character assassination in an attempt to show how brave, witty, and wise he is. He also doesn't turn in "book reports" that summarize the plot then give it a thumbs up or down, but he actually thinks about what he's seen. So...here's one thumbs up for Rich.
As long as we're on the topic, I have a great deal of admiration for both Rich Wattenberg and Marty Hughley. Both are experienced, thoughtful writers who could teach a lot to the rest of us in town. I have yet to see either of them fall into the "small-town theater" trap. This isn't a small theater town. There are cities a lot bigger than Portland that don't offer half as much interesting original work. Do we have a lot of half-talented, big-headed dinosaurs? Sure. But we've got more talent per capita than any city of comparable size that I've ever seen.
You know how many theater companies they have in Oklahoma City (pop. 531,324)? Ten. Denver (pop. 557,917)? Around 20. We are remarkably fortunate.
I response to Anonymous 6/27/2007 05:43:00 PM:
One could also look at Oklahoma City and Denver and say that the fewer number of theatre companies means the fewer god-awful, self-indulgent, training-deficient performances and productions one has to wade through to get to something good. It's an old argument: quantity vs quality.
Come on, you two. Get a room.
Great Pretender:
The argument strikes me as largely academic, unless you can offer an objective method to prove there are more mediocre productions in the crowd. One might just as well argue that an increased number of productions in general offers more opportunities for people to see what not to do, so they will improve, or that the increased competition for attention means the collective quality is going to be better in a crowd.
Post a Comment