A Defense of the Art of Constructive Criticism

In another day working with prestigious theatrical critics, the student critics attending the KCACTF workshop had the opportunity to pass their work in front of Celia Wren (Washington Post) and Chris Jones (The Chicago Tribune). Jones spent his few hours with the critics delivering an interactive lecture before critiquing a few pieces of student-written journalism.

Jones spoke on what it means to be a responsible critic and noted how criticism, no matter who from, has the potential to damage reputations and shatter egos; thus it's always important to take special care in your writing when dropping names. Just as it's necessary to give credit where credit is due, the critic must place blame where it belongs.

Jones suggests the responsible critic will consider whether the fault is with the performer/performance relationship or the actor/material relationship. It's also incredibly important to take your time to determine whether the artist at fault is the actor or the director.

Jones went on to explain his perception of his target audience(s) and described them as two groups that can be further divided into three: the "Insiders"and "Outsiders", which are then subdivided into "the Artists", "the Attendants", and "the Absents", the latter two will be discussed momentarily.

The artists of course look at criticism as an assessment of their work while the attendants and absents see it as a kind of consumer guide. Many artists detest this function of theatrical criticism and believe assigning stars or a numerical value to their work puts a kind of "grade" on an emotional response. There's no shortage of blogs and websites attacking critics for their reviews, asserting if an artist puts their heart and soul into a piece of art there's no way it can be "bad". They argue art is a subjective industry and no one man should have the power to pass judgement.

What these artists fail to realize is that the critic understands one hundred and ten percent the subjectivity of all artistic industries - be they Art, Theatre, The Culinary Arts, Music - and that is precisely the reason his position exists: To share a trusted opinion on the intent and execution of an artistic piece that illustrates the piece with a group of readers that may share his tastes.

Chris Jones explains the two other subdivisions of his readership - the Attendants and the Absents - as those who read the review with the intention of attending the Theater, and those who read the review purely for recreation, respectively. These may be a lesser portion of his readership, but the one that has the most direct effect on the box office, and ultimately the preservation of the art as a whole.

The Theatre is struggling to survive in a world where instant gratification and the declining necessity to leave the couch for entertainment drains audiences from their seats. Many people who love the Theatre even may prefer staying at home with their on-demand films to the kind of investment it takes to visit the theater. An evening at the theater requires a financial, chronological, and emotional commitment that many are not prepared to make for something they may or may not appreciate. It is therefore the responsible critic's primary duty to offer their unbiased opinion on a work while always acting as an advocate for the Art (that is, encouraging the progression and growth of the Theatre by way of always demanding better). It is my opinion that a malicious critic or one who treats his profession as a game and the industry as a chess board has no business behind a keyboard.