A wise set of guidelines. I'd also add that, having worked in artistic projects that required lengthy and complex collaborations, I've learned that it's often the case that no one involved really, fully understands the ultimate impact of everything in the work. That's why theaters hold previews. That joke doesn't really land. People aren…
A wise set of guidelines. I'd also add that, having worked in artistic projects that required lengthy and complex collaborations, I've learned that it's often the case that no one involved really, fully understands the ultimate impact of everything in the work. That's why theaters hold previews. That joke doesn't really land. People aren't following a major plot point that we thought we'd already over-explained.
And that's one of the great functions of a critic -- that perspective (one hopes it's a knowledgeable one) from outside our little creative bubble. I know/hope many artists understand that. I've received happy reviews but realized the critic really didn't understand what we were up to and a negative one that indicated the critic really DID understand much of our effort, he just didn't agree with it.
Concerning your remarks about socializing with the artists you write about, as a professional critic I've long cited an anecdote by the late great Texas wit and political journalist Molly Ivins. She told the story of a new, young legislator in the Texas State House seeking guidance from his older mentor. The problem the young man had was dealing with lobbyists. They're all so agreeable and friendly, they offer him dinners and drinks and even more to sway his vote, even to corrupt him in happy, rewarding ways (this IS the Texas State House). But how, the young man wanted to know, should he treat them when he already knew he wasn't going to support whatever policy or bill they were pushing?
The older legislator said, son, if you can't drink their liquor, enjoy their hospitality, take their money and still vote against them, you don't belong here.
My point is that a degree of socializing with artists is often an inevitable byproduct of a critic's job. It can be a matter of friendly or wary mutual respect. I've been yelled at in public on social occasions. Not that I didn't care; I simply took it as part of the job -- particularly when, as I was at the time, the lead theater critic in town. My reviews actually could affect the box office, not simply an artist's self-esteem. So I've tended to cut artists a LOT of slack when they've attacked me -- in print, online or in public. They've invested far more effort and time and heart into what they've done than what I've done with my review.
But that investment is precisely what often makes them not the best judge of the results.
A wise set of guidelines. I'd also add that, having worked in artistic projects that required lengthy and complex collaborations, I've learned that it's often the case that no one involved really, fully understands the ultimate impact of everything in the work. That's why theaters hold previews. That joke doesn't really land. People aren't following a major plot point that we thought we'd already over-explained.
And that's one of the great functions of a critic -- that perspective (one hopes it's a knowledgeable one) from outside our little creative bubble. I know/hope many artists understand that. I've received happy reviews but realized the critic really didn't understand what we were up to and a negative one that indicated the critic really DID understand much of our effort, he just didn't agree with it.
Concerning your remarks about socializing with the artists you write about, as a professional critic I've long cited an anecdote by the late great Texas wit and political journalist Molly Ivins. She told the story of a new, young legislator in the Texas State House seeking guidance from his older mentor. The problem the young man had was dealing with lobbyists. They're all so agreeable and friendly, they offer him dinners and drinks and even more to sway his vote, even to corrupt him in happy, rewarding ways (this IS the Texas State House). But how, the young man wanted to know, should he treat them when he already knew he wasn't going to support whatever policy or bill they were pushing?
The older legislator said, son, if you can't drink their liquor, enjoy their hospitality, take their money and still vote against them, you don't belong here.
My point is that a degree of socializing with artists is often an inevitable byproduct of a critic's job. It can be a matter of friendly or wary mutual respect. I've been yelled at in public on social occasions. Not that I didn't care; I simply took it as part of the job -- particularly when, as I was at the time, the lead theater critic in town. My reviews actually could affect the box office, not simply an artist's self-esteem. So I've tended to cut artists a LOT of slack when they've attacked me -- in print, online or in public. They've invested far more effort and time and heart into what they've done than what I've done with my review.
But that investment is precisely what often makes them not the best judge of the results.
Thanks for sharing the Molly Ivins story. It carries a useful lesson, and I may cite in the future.