From the Executive Director

The Eye of the Critic

By Ben Cameron

At the NEA-sponsored Arts Journalism Institute at the University of Southern California, I met theatre critics from around the country to discuss our future: the impact—and the opportunities—of an increasingly diverse nation; the changes in modes of perception, especially among the Internet-driven younger generation; and the implications of patterns of declining social activity.

While I had always posed these as issues for theatre practitioners, I suddenly realized that they had equal resonance for critics. With the explosion of diverse cultural and generational work, how can one critic ever hope to respond sensitively and appropriately to so many different traditions and genres? With newly emerging forms of performance—flash events, for example—how does criticism appropriately respond?

With the emergence of online chat forums and blogs, the autonomy of the local theatre critic is being severely tested, and some theatres already are deliberately bypassing the traditional critic altogether. And—if New York is any indication, at least—critical authority is likely to be tested much more stringently in the months to come. With Zagat's recent entry into the theatre scene here in Manhattan, we may watch an erosion of the art critic's power: Witness how the formidable influence of the restaurant critic has been largely replaced by Zagat, whose posters, logos and reviews now are proudly displayed by eateries in the window area once reserved for reprints of local paper and magazine reviews. Will Zagat replace Ben Brantley as the cultural endorser of choice?

Now, there are undoubtedly those among us who will view these shifts with no small degree of elation. But rather than dance gleefully around the bonfire, might this moment afford us the chance to redefine our relationship?

Frankly, now that we've acknowledged our somewhat symbiotic relationship (the impact of reviews on ticket sales; and arts listings' impact on paper sales, especially for tourists who have little incentive to buy the local paper other than to see what's playing in town now), I think it's time to realize we have common cause far deeper than simple economics. Theatre professionals and arts journalists both care deeply about local issues—indeed, both groups pride themselves on being involved citizens. Both are deeply vested in literacy. Both want a public capable of—indeed, that thrives on—substantive discourse and the exchange of complex ideas. And both face very real challenges in retaining, much less increasing, theatre audiences—especially a younger generation that seems increasingly indifferent to traditional journalism and arts experiences.

The critics at USC were not only eager to explore these ideas but were anxious to hear about lessons they might learn from theatres themselves. We discussed how criticism is enriched by multiple voices—the inclusion of non-critics and non-journalists. They were especially intrigued to hear about a presentation I saw at San Jose Repertory Theatre, in which artistic director Timothy Near interviewed the local son of touring jazz musicians in a pre-production forum for Side Man—a discussion that was as emotionally moving and as dramatically illuminating as any public forum I have ever seen.

We questioned whether the multifaceted approach of Zagat could be a useful model for a new kind of criticism. While arts performances in many papers are currently given a single comprehensive rating (the four stars or the clapping man syndrome), Zagat (and other restaurant critics) give different evaluations for price, ambience, service and so on. Might we too think about such an approach—one that would allow a critic to describe an audience response, for example, even while disagreeing with it? We've all seen the play at which the audience stood and cheered during previews—but never stood again once the reviews came out.

Might the role of the critic be as a convener for conversation, rather than an arbiter of public taste—a mediator rather than a judge? Can the critic frame the issues rather than provide the answers? I remember with special fondness a post-performance discussion after How I Learned to Drive at San Diego Rep at which the artists on stage basically asked one simple question and then sat back while the audience engaged in passionate and often heated discussion. As tempting as it was, those theatre professionals never gave answers but instead posed questions—producing the most engaged, vital and satisfying post-show talk one could ever wish to see.

Clearly, though, this involves more than simply asking critics to change their behavior: It requires us to think differently about how we engage the critical community. Dare we open our rehearsal halls to critics? Dare we share our aspirations for a production with them-and our candid self-assessments after the work has closed? Might we be willing to expose our inner workings—the good, the bad and the ugly—in ways that a sense of defensive self-protection has prohibited?

In short, as times change, an opportunity now presents itself to us. While there was clearly some resistance to these ideas, the great majority of the critics I met seemed open and eager for this conversation. If we extend the welcome for candid conversation, we may be surprised by the reception such meetings can bring—and by their ultimate result as well.