Posted: 3/22/16 at 11:29am
Not to forget: an awful lot of "advanced degrees" don't amount to a heck of a lot.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 11:40am
I mean, Tony Tommasini has a PhD and was a former college professor, and I find his music reviews for the Times damn-near unreadable. Then again, that's just my opinion. If this thread has shown anything, it's that the more one tries to quantify what is "essential" for a reviewer, the more it falls apart. One needs "experience" in theater -- unless one doesn't. One should have an advanced degree -- or not. It all comes back to the fact that there are many unique characteristics that contribute to good criticism.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 12:13pm
What are these "food critics" to which people refer? I know of restaurant reviewers, who subjectively discuss the experience of eating out (part of which is about the food). Is that what you mean?
Although many First Worlders will furiously disagree - the difference is that theatre is an art and restaurants are businesses. It's become rather trendy to call cooking an "art," and happy trails to you if you think it is, but...
That said, it's good to remember that there's a major technical difference between a "critic" (someone who analyzes an art using extensive knowledge, experience, and involvement - Bentley, Brustein, Feingold - who write for depth of thought and elucidation) and a "reviewer" (an enthusiastic outsider writing [or often mostly cribbing from a press packet] for a casually interested audience, primarily to advertise the work).
Posted: 3/22/16 at 12:39pm
newintown said: "the difference is that theatre is an art and restaurants are businesses."
Theatre isn't a business?! On a site where people pore over the weekly grosses like tea leaves as to the fate of certain shows?
Conversely, I've been to the French Laundry a few times, and I'd argue that was more artistic than certain Broadway shows I've seen...
Posted: 3/22/16 at 1:02pm
"Theatre isn't a business?! On a site where people pore over the weekly grosses like tea leaves as to the fate of certain shows?"
Mm-hmm, I suppose something similar can be said about any art, can't it? That is, most artists hope to make some money from their work. But which is more important to them - making something good, or something profitable?
Now, I know that it's difficult for those of us raised in a capitalist system to discern any difference between "good" and "profitable," taught as we are from infancy that the anything profitable is good, including war, guns, income disparity, unaffordable pharmaceuticals and surgery, usury, etc. But... is that true?
Posted: 3/22/16 at 1:18pm
newintown said: "Now, I know that it's difficult for those of us raised in a capitalist system to discern any difference between "good" and "profitable," taught as we are from infancy that the anything profitable is good, including war, guns, income disparity, unaffordable pharmaceuticals and surgery, usury, etc. But... is that true?"
Of course not, we've seen Cats and Wicked.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 2:21pm
Touché and meow.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 2:39pm
Posted: 3/22/16 at 3:48pm
Indy, I think you got it right. Just to add: each of us can (but need not) come to appreciate bellweather critics-people who we personally find either aligned with us with some frequency or just interesting to read. Over time, I think most of us have critics (and just people posting here) who we tend to "trust" more than others. And if the OP wants to trust folks who have theatre backgrounds, more power to him or her.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 5:26pm
While I don't think that a reviewer needs a background in theater per se, there are some in depth areas of study that are called for. Dramatic literature, dramatic and literary criticism, world literature, history, and some psychology and behavioral science couldn't hurt. A good reviewer is less interested in his/her personal taste than than examining what the writer and creative team were aiming for and how close to that goal they came. And was that goal worthy? Xanadu, for instance, may not have aimed very high but I thought they hit the target and whether or not it's my kind of show is irrelevant. What they set out to do, they did well. I won't pick on works I feel had loads more ambition but missed by a mile.
Posted: 3/22/16 at 7:02pm
This is an excellent point.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
