I work on the marketing side of the business. So I can’t say I know what it feels like to read a bad review of my performance in a mainstream newspaper. (Theatre critics rarely mention marketing – good or bad – in their reviews!)

There is, however, ample opportunity to criticize the work I do at this venue (see comments above).

;-)

I think the key here is “perception.” This blog does not represent a neutral position. I think it’s supportive, but It’s also critical – that is: it is involved in critical thinking beyond the borders of the company.

Criticism does not equal standing on a soapbox slagging people’s work. Critical participation can be simply asking questions. Or participating in discussion. Or putting forward a point of view. These are all things that our community is already doing to some degree.

Harbourfront Centre and The Theatre Centre, for example, recently put on that “What is your relevance?” conference in Toronto – a focused and concerted effort to raise the bar on critical discourse.

So the question is not, “To criticize or not to criticize.” The question is “How do we criticize?”

But seriously. At some point, every real artist must learn to depend on his/her own wisdom.

Agreed, Ian, re blogging and democratization.

by this i mean it would be less helpful than the alternative of simply commenting when I LIKE something. this whole having a career making indie theatre thing is extremely tenuous and difficult. if you’re burning bridges faster than building them, things just get that much harder.

look at it through the other side of the looking glass: how much goodwill has praxis generated through this very blog by being perceived as outward looking and an asset to the community? the reverse would be true with an individual who was perceived as providing commentary that was perceived as critical.

i know the response to this, “people have to be thicker skinned and accept all kinds of feedback in an effort to improve”. i’m not sure if i wanna be the guy that helps folks come around that way. i may leave it to academics and marketing gurus….

No. We should all be challenging each other. It’s vital. The trick is in figuring out how.

Our community has been living under the tyranny of the mainstream media review system for so long, we have forgotten how to criticize each other. It’s criticism by proxy: “I can’t risk standing up and calling bullshit on a peer because it’ll hurt my career. So I’ll just wait until the newspapers cut them down.”

Is this our model? How is our industry supposed to prosper under conditions that forbid peer review? It’s insane!

It doesn’t mean we should be “reviewing” each other’s work. That’s probably a bad idea. Many critics already do a fine job of that. But surely there’s a way to talk openly and critically about each other’s work without it being the career suicide Mike has suggested it is.

Maybe instead of “How’s my driving?” bumper stickers, we could have, “How’s my acting?” or “How’s my directing?” bumper stickers (on our bicycles).

–

BTW.

I think blogging has a role in the democratization of media, and represents a partial re-calibrating of, and counterpoint to, the review system. It’s a new opportunity, at the very least.

i guess posting anonymously is one way around this, but i would also like to speak with my own voice. it’s tricky. it makes it possible to discuss issues and ideas, but not perhaps specific artists or productions…that and i don’t want scott’s theatre police to work me over again, those guys are lethal.