Goldring Arts Journalism

Critics Get Thumbs-Down
Some can be labeled as clueless, bored, predictable and egotistical

By David Rubin

For the past 40 years I have been a diligent reader of the work of arts critics. I have read their pieces in The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, Opera News, Opera, The (Syracuse) Post-Standard, and New York Magazine. Through regular travel I have also become familiar with the work of critics in Washington, San Francisco, Cleveland and Chicago.

I estimate that I have read at least 80,000 reviews, and I've probably seen 5,000 of the performances, films or exhibits that were the subjects of some of these 80,000 reviews, so I've had a chance to compare my tastes to theirs (always a sobering experience).

After all this reading, I've developed a taxonomy for the genus "critic." I've identified five distinct species.

The first is the booster critic, who is wildly enthusiastic about everything. Local theater companies are delivering performances worthy of Broadway or the West End. The local orchestra sounds like the Vienna Philharmonic. A homegrown cabaret singer should be sharing the stage at the Carlyle with Bobby Short. For these Panglossians, the local cultural scene has never been better and could not possibly be rivaled.

The second is the clueless critic. This is the writer who has been assigned to an event which is clearly a first, perhaps an opera or an art exhibition. Where to start? What to say? Without any context or experience to draw on, the poor critic is left to recite the plot or describe the scenery.

The third is the bored critic. This one has seen it all, many times. Nothing is new. Nothing is as good as it used to be. Arts organizations are all too timid, because they never offer enough that is new (to the critic). This species probably needs a different job.

The fourth is the brilliant critic, and he or she knows it. The point of a review for this critic is to parade his or her knowledge and make it abundantly clear that the lowly reader will never know as much about art or opera or architectural design as the critic. Indeed, the composers, architects, and painters themselves don't know as much. This species would be more welcome in academia.

The fifth is the predictable critic. If a show is a sure-fire crowd pleaser, this critic will hate it. Anything the masses find appealing must, by virtue of its own popularity, be vulgar. On the other hand, anything new and challenging, regardless of its likely popular appeal or artistic worth, will be warmly received and presented as a challenge to all arts administrators to "get with it."

The critics are entitled to satisfy their needs. As a reader, however, I have my own, and I am selfish enough to think mine should come first. Some critics occasionally serve my needs. Often they don't. Indeed, I wonder if critics seriously consider what their readers expect of them. So I am here to tell them.

For any arts event with a lengthy run, the critic must function as a consumer-affairs reporter. Should I pay my money to see this production or exhibition? Why? Is it entertaining? Does it offer a new perspective on the work? Does it reveal a promising newcomer to the arts scene? Just as important, why shouldn't I bother? I hate to think of how much time and money I have wasted trusting a critic who offered a rave review to inept, wrong-headed, or simply ordinary artistic events.

A critic must elevate the artistic standards of the community. Real harm is done if the critic constantly praises the amateurish. The community will never expect more, and the arts organizations won't deliver it. Why should they? Soon they begin believing their own glowing notices, or they ignore the reviews because they know the critic has nothing useful to offer. Once effusive praise becomes the norm, anything less might as well come from "The Enemy of the People." The bold critic must suggest to the community what it could be, if only it worked harder and demanded more of its performers, funders, and audience members.

A critic should teach me something, even if I don't see the performance in question. This requires considerable knowledge of the art form and its current place in history. The critic should have a memory bank of previous performances to draw on and an awareness of the challenges posed by specific works. Serious critics must travel and compare, read widely, talk to artists, and avidly chart the evolution of the arts. The critic should not be afraid to tell me why a new artist could be the next great thing, or why an established artist is, in fact, a fraud on the public (and there are plenty).

Finally, the critic should be a cheerleader for the importance of the arts to a civil society. The critic should encourage the public to care passionately about the impact of the arts on the quality of life. Just as one cannot imagine a functioning democracy without a politically engaged citizenry, so, too, is a passionate and knowledgeable audience for the arts a necessary condition for a vibrant creative community. The critic must nurture and encourage that audience.

How many critics take up all these challenges? In my considerable experience as a consumer of their work, I would say, "not many." They may not want to tangle with local companies or artists. They may not have seen enough or heard enough to trust their own instincts. They may not have studied the art form. They may be tired, or jaded, or they may not have wanted the arts beat in the first place.

Can the Goldring Arts Journalism Program change this? We can do our part by firing a passion for the arts, providing historical information, context, and a range of live performance experiences. But the media will also have to do their part. They will have to recognize the importance to their audience of arts criticism and news about the arts. And they will have to admit that the arts do not begin and end with Adam Sandler and Ashlee Simpson. That may be the biggest challenge of all.

David Rubin is dean of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, a position he has held for 15 years. He has written about the business of classical music for magazines such as Musical America, Hi Fidelity and Connoisseur. He also has written for Harper's and Chamber Music magazine.