“Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas: I cannot serve the cause of friendliness when I am trying to serve the cause of theatre by being as passionate, subjective and truthfull as I can be.
“Criticism is, by definition, one of the most elitist activities extant. It is highly presumptuous to sit in judgment – to be paid for sitting in judgment – over other people’s work and talent; to pronounce, in a democratic society, on what is superior and what inferior, and know, even while doing it, that masses of people will not understand such discrimination, feel threatened by it, and resent it bitterly.
“The only kind of critic who is not considered an elitist at all is one who likes most things; the trouble with such a critic is that he is not a critic at all. To be choosy, to be stern, is to be elitist; yet what is discrimination and tough-mindedness except strong conviction based on intense comparative evaluation, which might just as easily be called practical, shrewd and energetic. In his own domain, a critic is simply a rugged individualist; what makes him an elitist would, in almost any other field make him a good American.”
Uneasy Stages, 1973
yes, life as a critic is hard. no one likes you or understands you and everyone thinks your out to get them. and yet as long as the critic is not a practitioner, he or she will never totally understand the artists either. they may understand what productions work and what don’t, as well as how they fit into a community and a body of work.
but they will never understand how they were made: the messy rehearsals, the creative financing, the struggle to stage human truths from words on a page. certainly the elitest critic is necessary and useful to audiences, but lets not forget the limits of his or her wisdom/knowledge.
i mean “you’re” (sentence #2)
I’m not entirely convinced that contemporary theatre critics are as forlorned and misunderstood as Simon argues here. A lazy critic deserves our spite, to be sure. But a good critic – one with noble intentions, a reasonable work ethic and who strives for fair-minded insight – is a welcome member of the community in my books.
Ian
Robert Brustein wrote a wonderful article on John Simon’s anthologies of essays in which be posited a Good John Simon and a Bad John Simon. And when he was good, he was very, very good; but when he was bad, hoo boy lookout Mama!
i took a class with brustein every wednesday for two years and he had a lot to say that i agreed with – and disagreed with – what i think is more interesting though is this comes up so early in our converstaion about the eliteist critic. that the first person to be cited is the ex-Dean of Harvard and Yale’s Drama programs. i’m pretty sure that the person who held those titles is going to be okay with the concept of an eliteist theatre critic. it’s like asking General Patton if he believes in America.
huh.
in response to your first post, mike, i’m not sure it matters if the critic understands the artist or not. because unless the audience is filled with artists themselves (which i grant is primarily the case on the indie scene) they probably don’t understand what went into it either. and they likely don’t care. what they care about is the experience they have in their seat for that couple of hours (and for the money they spent).
so who knows. maybe it’s better for a critic to know fuck-all about what we do. because in the end if it doesn’t end up on the stage, who really cares?
yeah, i know. when i’m reading reviews, deciding what i want to go see, i don’t give a crap about a company’s process or their struggles. i just want to see something good – something that will entertain and educate (in the broad sense). the superior tone of the quote that started the post off just rubs me the wrong way though. i wanted to point out all of the things about theatre this supposedly omnipotent voice doesn’t know and never will. even the biggest blue jay fan – heck even the play by play guy – doesn’t know what it’s like to try and hit a 100mph fastball.
Mike,
I’m sure more than a few theatre critics have tried their hand at putting together a show in some capacity.
I’m not sure I get where you’re going with this. You seem to be suggesting that non-practitioners can never have a “truly” informed opinion about anything. And at the very least, your statements here seem to play into a basic and unhelpful us-and-them-ism.
Are you arguing that theatre critics are somehow fundamentally unfit for the job they do?
because (in Toronto) at least, it does not seem like artists and critics are at war with one another, im not overly concerned with making “us” and “them” statements. i am not trying to bridge the gap between blue and red states, etc.
what i am pointing out is a fairly simple fact though:
those that DO have a different knowledge and experience than those that WATCH.
and i am pointing it out explicitly and through the use of cheesy sports metaphors today because the quote from Simon that started this whole thing off wreaked so badly of the worst kind of eliteist solipsism that poisons our “high arts” i felt compelled to provide a counterpoint.
anyways, this whole thing is a huge burn on me as i was the one who argued vigorously about talking critics and reviews on the blog and now look at me.
but i do dig that you just used the phrase “burn on me”.