Arts as Community Dialogue

I agree with comments already made by Bridgette and Victoria. However, something else about this exchange between newspaper writer and reader jumped out at me. Living in Wisconsin, I am not familiar with the particulars of Savannah's cultural scene and its players. But some interesting assumptions were revealed in the reader's response. These statements in particular struck me: "Mr. Stoehr is the reporter for the city's newspaper and I assume that does allow him to be its critic as well" and "Everyone deserves to have the recognition and advertisement in the Savannah Morning News..."

There seems to be a feeling that an arts reporter should not really be expressing an opinion or critical judgment. I disagree with that, and I think the sports analogy is again apt. Most well-known sportswriters are also commentators -- they've got a bent, a view on the coaches, players, etc. Their personal take is what gives their writing zing. Why should arts writing be any different?

And the word "advertising" in the second statement is also problematic. Yes, any local paper should cover a wide swath of professional and non-professional arts, but coverage should not be equated with advertising. Journalism is not PR. Writers have every right, I think, to take a stance. That doesn't mean others can't disagree -- respectful conversation is, in a way, the whole point! -- but arts writers should not be afraid to be themselves and be analytical in print.

I hope John's think piece, the response (and now other responses coming in on the Savannah Morning News blog) can keep some sort of conversation going in a positive direction.

What is is, really? :)

Seriously, though, I think it is a very important disucssion to have within any of our communities, as I think it would nip a whole lot of potential misunderstandings in the bud. How do various members of the theater community describe success and where do they feel they are on the path that could ultimately lead to that success?

Could make a heck of a think piece.

Ah, and there we could have an interesting discussion. How is success defined? Or rather, what are the many different definitions of success and what is the relative validity of each one?

I echo Bridgette's response (let's map it out here: I am responding to Bridgette's response to your response to the reader's response. Viva la technology!). I think you handled it in an honest, informative manner and encouraged continued discussion. That's fantastic, and I hope that more readers add their thoughts!

I think this discussion, however, can be boiled down to the differing view of success that a critic and theater companies can have. The example of The Secret Garden used in the reader's response was a perfect one. Great, people were being turned away from the packed house. For The Secret Garden. It's not exactly cutting-edge, enjoyable as many may find it.

I know I'm in a similar situation -- I want vibrant theater that pushes the envelope and dares to be new, not necessarily the latest community theater revival. Companies, however, see high subscription rates and full houses as success.

Two very different takes. Kudos to you for pointing that out.

I think it is exciting to see an exchange by two people who are passionate about theater. Life would be boring if we all agreed and conversation helps to fuel actions.

I think your preface is perfect. It establishes respect between the two of you and a statement about the commitment each of you feel. I hope the conversation continues and that you both come out of it feeling enriched by the other person.