Mission Critical for Arts Criticism

In the job posting heard ‘round the theatre world a few weeks ago, the powers that be at The New York Times declared that their new theatre critic will be “eager to embrace new story forms with strong visual, audio and video components,” someone who will be “ready to employ different platform,” and “routinely use alternate story formats and multimedia.” Don’t worry, the posting does also seek someone who can write, describing a “dynamic, digital first writer.” 

The reshuffling of the critical deck on the Times theatre desk wasn’t a singular event, but rather part of a broader move in the culture department there, affecting theatre, pop music, television and classical music all at once, even if the results won’t be seen until the positions are refilled. No doubt the passionate conversations about what has been and what will be on the culture beat that were engendered by this move also engulfed the music and TV field, both pros and fans, but I’m only party to, and concerned with, what this means for the world of theatre.

Yet even thinking narrowly about theatre criticism, one must appreciate that it’s part of a larger arts journalism universe, one which seems to undergo perpetual upheavals and continuing diminishment in its ranks. Only days before the critical purge at the Times, the Associated Press announced that it would be ending its practice of supplying book reviews to outlets nationally and internationally; the AP had ended Off-Broadway theatre reviews, though not Broadway, back in 2013. Days after the Times bombshell, Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips posted on Facebook that the paper had “zeroed-out the position of film critic” and that he would be leaving the publication after decades of service. It’s a shrinking field.

When it comes to arts criticism, there seems to be no shortage of opinions about opinion and the people who purvey them. However that dialogue exists primarily in a culture of complaint, since it is rare, in my perception, to find as much discussion about what’s beneficial and positive about criticism; the tendency is to bemoan what is wrong, whether it’s a single negative review, a consensus of failure to appreciate work, or the perceived biases of a critic or group of critics. 

Part of this stems, I suspect, from a desire to find critics who are paragons, perpetual champions of the form they cover. But that’s not who media outlets are hiring. In an era where journalism is driven by eyeballs and clicks, not simply a perception of what might be of value to consumers, the role is impossibly conflicted. The New York Times unwittingly set out that challenge in their theatre critic job description, by declaring, “We are looking for someone who can make the world of theater accessible to general audiences while also producing criticism that engages and delights experts and aficionados.” In other words, they want someone who can be all things to all people (or at least, all theatre-interested people) and I’m willing to bet that they’ll fall short no matter who they hire.

It bears stating that there is fundamental value to the field in criticism, as distinct from feature writing. The dramaturg was once conceived of as an in-house critic, an internal ombudsman, offering independent viewpoints while work was still in development. But inevitably whether as a staff or freelance position, their views were still that of an insider as the field evolved. The critic, beholden only to their employers and their readers, rather than the theatre company or producer, can say what they think without any possibility of direct reprisal, with independence. In a statement attributed to film critic Pauline Kael, without critics, all that’s left is marketing.

That said, the rise of social media has fundamentally altered the role of cultural critic, since the relative singularity of critical opinion, the voice emanating as an edifice on high, has become one of many, especially as media consumption has fragmented and diminished. Word of mouth, long an essential driver of awareness and even sales has been elevated and even turbocharged; my own posting of the NY Times theatre critic job description, shared without any editorializing by me, was “viewed” over 325,000 times as it surfed the algorithmic wave of social media. Just imagine the results if I’d hazarded some witty remark. Social media has also made it possible to talk back to critics and critique them in turn. At The New Yorker, Kelefa Sanneh recently wrote an article entitled “How Music Criticism Lost Its Edge,” noting a softening of critical declarations; on a recent NPR interview an interviewer asked if social media had “raised the cost of inconvenient or impolite speech.”

The greatest challenge in the pursuit of idealized criticism is one of scarcity – we have too few critics and too few outlets of scale. This forces ever more pressure on the voices and media that remain, because to whatever degree we believe that criticism matters, they must carry an ever-heavier load of responsibility. At the same time, the arts community and even consumers are rightly desirous of more variety – of writer, of writing style, of outlet. It is impossible to look at even the recent history of arts criticism and not notice the preponderance of white male critics that held sway until recently. But now the long overdue and necessary call for diversity, and diversification – more women, more writers of color, more queer voices, greater age range, and more – comes when the field is contracting.

Having come into the business as a publicist 40 years ago, I have watched as arts journalism has been buffeted and diminished. Even social media, which didn’t exist in that era, has already undergone a devolution (thanks, Elon) that has reduced its effectiveness as a place for public discourse on the arts. So while we wait to learn who will be the chief theatrical oracle at The New York Times, one of the few major media outlets to find a successful financial footing in this new news media era, we must once again consider the value and yes the necessity of criticism and how it can be democratized beyond the few surviving voices of influence. Theatres must think about whether critics can in fact find homes in-house, with the freedom to analyze and even dissent publicly, perhaps even writing on works at peer institutions. Critical practice must be part of educational efforts, so that the form is advanced for future generations of audiences. Perhaps it’s time for criticism to genuinely become part of theatre making, and not just something layered onto it externally.