So Michael Billington writes a riposte to Big Steve’s assessment of professional critics. He does somewhat misinterpret (deliberately? who knows) Sondheim’s main point which is not that critics are unnecessary but that, for an artist, reading your own reviews – good, bad or indifferent – is never helpful.
Nevertheless the Billington defence is worth a gander. It is essentially this:
1. “Art doesn't exist in a social or economic vacuum”. In other words, if you ask people to pay for a public performance you can expect to get some public comment.
2. “What we all crave is a reaction to our work”. In other words, a bad review is better than no review.
3. In New York, at least, “the dearth of newspapers gives critics a disproportionate authority”. In other words, in Britain, nobody cares what critics say. (I may have misinterpreted this last one.)
Well, in order:
1) True. But do we need professional public comment? Perhaps “need” is too strong a word. Better to say that the variety and choice of professional theatre available creates a demand for a critical discernment of that choice, for which an appropriate remuneration and status can be maintained by one thought to hold such qualities of discernment.
2) True again. But giving in to cravings isn’t always a good idea. Just ask my waistline.
3) Don’t know about New York critics. I suspect, however, that for the fortunes of most musicals, word of mouth is the ultimate authority.
My own feeling is that 1) is the only real justification for a professional theatre critic. Critics are essentially Which? reviewers advising us on what washing machine to buy. Nothing wrong with that. It can be done well or done poorly. But its significance is mainly to washing machine buyers (i.e. the audience) rather than manufacturers (i.e. the artists).
No comments:
Post a Comment