A
Kaleider lunchtime talk by theatre writer
Belinda Dillon last Friday offered a new opportunity to consider the whys and hows of creating a critical culture within Exeter's arts community.
Having written about theatre for a number of years, Belinda has been working with Kaleider to reflect more deeply on the role of 'the critic' in the local arts ecology. For her,
Theatre Bristol's Writers in Residence Scheme is something of a beacon as it invites a diverse range of people to respond to performance work, often in very creative ways. Curated/edited by two paid writers (Richard Aslan and Tom Wainwright), the focus is on positive and supportive interviews, interactions, reviews, comments. It also positions critical writing as an interesting creative practice in its own right.
In the discussion that followed, it was clear that theatre-makers are as keen for peer critique as visual artists, though some feel this is better offered in a 'safe' or confidential context than via publication. At the same time there's a hunger for official recognition from what are frequently referred to as 'star reviewers', but less enthusiasm for a blogger-type free-for-all. As someone pointed out, in live performance you don't need a critic to tell you if a performance worked for an audience: there's instant feedback in the form of laughter or applause.
A key issue is: if we want professional critics, who's going to pay them? Star reviewers don't pop up fully formed out of nowhere ─ someone has to train and develop them. That means sustained opportunities for writers to develop their skills and knowledge (not just occasional bursaries and short courses).
A common solution seems to be 'embedding', where writers are paid by an arts organisation ─ either directly or indirectly ─ to play the role of critic, commentator and sometimes mentor. This can work well, but can blunt the writer's critical faculties if the relationship gets too cosy. It can also result in 'critical writing' being used as a marketing tool. In other words, objectivity is compromised. Is a writer short of paid work really going to bite the hand that feeds? And what does that mean for honest debate and the quality control it promotes?
There was also talk of a 'shared community of interest' that dissolves the
barriers between professional critics, peers and audience members. It's a great idea but it's likely to end up muddied by personal loyalties (or even hostilities). Don't we also want to hear from independent observers, who can try to be at least a little bit objective?
I speak as an arts practitioner who has largely suspended her
critical writing practice, partly because the trickle of money it once generated dried up completely, and partly because navigating the murky waters of marketing writing versus critical writing was getting way too complicated. And that's before you even consider the problem of building trust with fellow practitioners while keeping critical integrity intact...
I've written on this topic before, back in 2010. See more here:
http://gabriellehoad.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/is-there-right-way-to-write-about-art.html
http://gabriellehoad.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/good-and-bad-art.html
