I've noticed a disturbing trend in the media lately, especially in regards to the arts and criticism. I would jokingly call it "Printing the Press Release." When I first started using the term, I could tell people just though I was being cynical. To be honest, I felt a little cynical. A part of me felt like one of those conspiracy theorists who think the Easter Bunny killed Lincoln. Now, rather than feel like maybe I was onto something all along, I tend to think that the situation has just gotten much, much worse.
So what kind of situation am I talking about?
Mainly, I'm talking about journalistic laziness. Then again, that doesn't really seem fair, since my targets here are reviewers and reviewers are not journalists. Then again, with newspapers quickly going the way of the cotton gin, like it or not, reviewers are having to do double duty as both arts writers AND critics. That means the same person who writes a two-page feature on a production where he/she writes about how interesting it sounds might then have to turn around and bash the whole thing a week later.
That, to me, has always seemed a little...awkward.
It seems to be the journalistic equivalent of befriending some kid on the playground only to turn around and tell all the other kids that the new kid's second act isn't as fully developed as it should be.
(Okay, maybe that's a weak metaphor.)
The point is, lately, I've been seeing a lot more positive reviews, but the quality of writing has gone down, down, down. Instead of seeing any actual commentary on a given production, I'm mainly seeing a rehashing of the show's press release.
This isn't only happening in the arts, but I don't want to go down the rickety road of examining political spin and the impact of the media and objectivity when all I really want to ask is--"When did everybody get so lazy?"
I know, I know--budgets are getting cut, there's less room for theater reviews, etc., etc.
But even with less room, can't these critics find a way of writing something intelligent? Personally, I tend to find that when I'm forced to be concise, I do my best work (which is why I'm just going to end this article here...okay, maybe in a few more lines).
I swear lately I've seen whole phrases lifted out of a press release and put right into a review. (Okay maybe I'm making that up, or maybe I'm just too tired to go find any examples of that, but trust me, I'm not far off.)
My favorite example would have to be a critic complimenting the previous work of a director that he hadn't actually seen.
Let me repeat that: In a review for a director's sophomore effort, he praised the freshman effort never having seen it. When he did, he used the same adjective to describe it as the press release did.
Oh look, there's my example. I'd get more specific, but I don't want to start calling out names, otherwise I'll never stop.
There are a lot of ways in which the press releases seem to be feeding the critics. One will say a certain performance in the show is a "tour de force" and sure enough, the critics will zero in on that performance and pretty much disregard the other actors in the show. Another press release will say that it's production is a "must see" and pretty soon, the critics are echoing that statement.
In other words, the press releases are now reading like advanced reviews, and the critics figure--"Hey, why bother writing our own reviews when they're doing it for us?"
What bothers me about this is that for me, there's art and then there's the conversation that revolves around and about art. A few days ago, I found a quote by David Hockney that I like very much. It's this: "It is very good advice to believe only what an artist does, rather than what he says about his work."
Basically, don't (necessarily) believe the press release. It's there to do a job, and that's sell the production. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's the audience and the critics and whoever else takes in the work to discuss, enjoy, and dissect it. "Dissect" may be too scary a word. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that the critics seem to be finding positive things to say, but can't they be positive and analytical at the same time.
Why aren't I reading about how a show impacted them or what sort of social commentary the production was making (if any) or--and this is a huge annoyance of mine--whether or not the flaws in the show should be attributed to the play itself or to the production?
It just seems to me like letting the marketing department of a theater inform you about what you should think of the show their theater is putting on is allowing a large part of the theatrical experience to be taken away from you. A reviewer should be the person prompting discussion, inspiring people to talk about what they've seen, and pointing out nuances and subtleties that the audience might have missed--not jotting down who played what and summarizing the show. I remember that on the first day of freshman year of college, as a theater major, I was handed a sheet explaining how to write a review for a play. The first bullet point informed me that I could spend no more than a paragraph summarizing the show. Recently, I've seen reviewers take up whole pages doing nothing but that. Maybe I should e-mail them that sheet. It's probably stuck in the middle of my Introduction to Computer Science textbook.
(Note to Critics: If you're reviewing something like, oh I don't know, Cats or Romeo and Juliet, you don't need to summarize it. I think most of us know the story, and those who don't can be surprised. By the way, sorry if you actually do have to sit through Cats.)
Look, I realize times are tough, and editors are tough, and the critics just want to get home and watch Person of Interest like the rest of us, but how can we, as an artistic community, expect people to care about what we do, if the people who are paid to care about what we do can't even muster up enough enthusiasm to write something too long to fit on a fortune cookie?
Feel free to disagree with me on all or any of this. I think all of this should be up for a good, long discussion.
So what kind of situation am I talking about?
Mainly, I'm talking about journalistic laziness. Then again, that doesn't really seem fair, since my targets here are reviewers and reviewers are not journalists. Then again, with newspapers quickly going the way of the cotton gin, like it or not, reviewers are having to do double duty as both arts writers AND critics. That means the same person who writes a two-page feature on a production where he/she writes about how interesting it sounds might then have to turn around and bash the whole thing a week later.
That, to me, has always seemed a little...awkward.
It seems to be the journalistic equivalent of befriending some kid on the playground only to turn around and tell all the other kids that the new kid's second act isn't as fully developed as it should be.
(Okay, maybe that's a weak metaphor.)
The point is, lately, I've been seeing a lot more positive reviews, but the quality of writing has gone down, down, down. Instead of seeing any actual commentary on a given production, I'm mainly seeing a rehashing of the show's press release.
This isn't only happening in the arts, but I don't want to go down the rickety road of examining political spin and the impact of the media and objectivity when all I really want to ask is--"When did everybody get so lazy?"
I know, I know--budgets are getting cut, there's less room for theater reviews, etc., etc.
But even with less room, can't these critics find a way of writing something intelligent? Personally, I tend to find that when I'm forced to be concise, I do my best work (which is why I'm just going to end this article here...okay, maybe in a few more lines).
I swear lately I've seen whole phrases lifted out of a press release and put right into a review. (Okay maybe I'm making that up, or maybe I'm just too tired to go find any examples of that, but trust me, I'm not far off.)
My favorite example would have to be a critic complimenting the previous work of a director that he hadn't actually seen.
Let me repeat that: In a review for a director's sophomore effort, he praised the freshman effort never having seen it. When he did, he used the same adjective to describe it as the press release did.
Oh look, there's my example. I'd get more specific, but I don't want to start calling out names, otherwise I'll never stop.
There are a lot of ways in which the press releases seem to be feeding the critics. One will say a certain performance in the show is a "tour de force" and sure enough, the critics will zero in on that performance and pretty much disregard the other actors in the show. Another press release will say that it's production is a "must see" and pretty soon, the critics are echoing that statement.
In other words, the press releases are now reading like advanced reviews, and the critics figure--"Hey, why bother writing our own reviews when they're doing it for us?"
What bothers me about this is that for me, there's art and then there's the conversation that revolves around and about art. A few days ago, I found a quote by David Hockney that I like very much. It's this: "It is very good advice to believe only what an artist does, rather than what he says about his work."
Basically, don't (necessarily) believe the press release. It's there to do a job, and that's sell the production. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's the audience and the critics and whoever else takes in the work to discuss, enjoy, and dissect it. "Dissect" may be too scary a word. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that the critics seem to be finding positive things to say, but can't they be positive and analytical at the same time.
Why aren't I reading about how a show impacted them or what sort of social commentary the production was making (if any) or--and this is a huge annoyance of mine--whether or not the flaws in the show should be attributed to the play itself or to the production?
It just seems to me like letting the marketing department of a theater inform you about what you should think of the show their theater is putting on is allowing a large part of the theatrical experience to be taken away from you. A reviewer should be the person prompting discussion, inspiring people to talk about what they've seen, and pointing out nuances and subtleties that the audience might have missed--not jotting down who played what and summarizing the show. I remember that on the first day of freshman year of college, as a theater major, I was handed a sheet explaining how to write a review for a play. The first bullet point informed me that I could spend no more than a paragraph summarizing the show. Recently, I've seen reviewers take up whole pages doing nothing but that. Maybe I should e-mail them that sheet. It's probably stuck in the middle of my Introduction to Computer Science textbook.
(Note to Critics: If you're reviewing something like, oh I don't know, Cats or Romeo and Juliet, you don't need to summarize it. I think most of us know the story, and those who don't can be surprised. By the way, sorry if you actually do have to sit through Cats.)
Look, I realize times are tough, and editors are tough, and the critics just want to get home and watch Person of Interest like the rest of us, but how can we, as an artistic community, expect people to care about what we do, if the people who are paid to care about what we do can't even muster up enough enthusiasm to write something too long to fit on a fortune cookie?
Feel free to disagree with me on all or any of this. I think all of this should be up for a good, long discussion.
Comments
Post a Comment