Reviews that fuel community dialogue?

I certainly don't dispute the reality of comments by Rich Copley or Ben Wener, and I doubt that others would either. So are all of us resigned to anticipating a day when we are completely saturated with electronic art reviews that
publishers know will "make the sales graph go UP!" and once or twice a month, we dial up some
secret frequency and relive artdom's version of the last scene of "Fahrenheit 451"?

Rich Copley gets at the crux of the issue: "There may also be a reluctance to offend."
I think the critic has to take the first step in breaking down that barrier, by giving offense with merciless gusto when the offering at hand is lousy. Pull the wings off the bug, and its buddies will try to sting you back. Voila! Dialogue! But first make sure your editors WANT provocative criticism, which they can prove by giving you enough space to develop your argument with specific examples, fleshed-out analysis and illuminating comparisons. Oh, and when the symphony or museum board chairman calls his/her country club buddy, your publisher, be sure your editors have trained said publisher to say the journalistically correct thing, and mean it.
Here's an interesting example from Orange County Register pop music critc Ben Wener of what can happen when a critic lets it all hang out vis a vis a local icon:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/entertainment/music/features/article_1663622.php

Jennifer Smith points out the one last hope for saving the Arts -- writing critiques, rather than reviews. Critiques,(like "greed," to borrow a film term), make everything crystal clear, for they establish what aesthetics are intended to accomplish, and they distinguish the difference between good and bad art/performance, and reward the accomplished. That's the first step. And if this is not the first step, I would truly appreciate hearing from someone on this forum that can enlighten people like me as to what the first step should be. Many Thanks.

Though the internet has made responding to newspapers so much easier, there still seems to be an Ivory Tower mentality toward newspapers and critics.

For centuries, people have not been used to being able to have a back and forth with their local daily, so now that the door is open so much wider, they are somewhat reluctant to step through.

I cover culture for the Herald-Leader in Lexington, Ky., something of a mirror of Madison, and I noticed a curious phenomenon on my blog, that I tend to get more comments from out of the area than in the area. People who encounter it simply as a blog, and not part of the newspaper institution just seem to feel more free to chat.

There may also be a reluctance to offend. While venues for cultural discussions are growing on the net, the newspaper is still the dominant mass media in most Flyover markets. While artists or producers may take exception to a review, they may not want to risk offending the critic for fear of retribution the next time around -- though as professionals we should not operate that way, we know there are some people who do.

Our arts community has developed some message boards and the like where there are lively discussions about local theater, etc. So artists are not disinclined to discuss, it just seems a tad disinclined to discuss with us.

Keep in mind that people who are interested in the arts constitute a niche market. The number of people who have opinions about an exhibit, a classical music concert or a play are going to be fairly small relative to the overall population -- which is preoccupied watching sports or arguing about "The Sopranos."

The best place for dialogue isn't going to be a newspaper, which is a general interest publication. It's going to be the Internet, which caters to the specialized.

Can newspapers develop their websites to better serve niche market interests like the arts? Do they care to? These are the questions of the hour.

As someone who grew up in flyover country and moved back after several theatre degrees: First, newspapers get little response to "reviews" because most are not "criticism." They're reviews. There's little to respond to when the theatre "article" consists of a quick plot summary, a compliment or pan to a few of the actors, and production details. Why would I write to a paper--to disagree with the reviewer? What's the point, since I'm unlikely to alter that person's opinion?

And the complaint that poor theatre isn't worth reviewing is simply lazy. If critics want to support the arts and encourage their growth in the community, try critiquing instead of reviewing! Make positive suggestions for change, give thoughtful and useful feedback to the theatre company, write op-eds on the arts, and generate discussion. Talk to the artists on their own level, read the playscript to have understanding of who is responsible for what, do some background work deeper than pulling a quick Wikipedia and Playbill check. (Two examples: don't blame the actors for poor costume choices, and don't blame the playwright when the director cuts the script beyond recognition.) Try to get readers excited about the art even when you can't be excited about the (lack of) professionalism. Give arts readers a direction to go in instead of an empty "worth your $10/ not worth your $10."

I'll take arts blogs over the majority of newspaper columns in my area because both bloggers and commenters are frequently and energetically participating in useful dialogue. It takes a lot of time before I'll trust one person's opinion, so while I read the local critics' reviews, I don't give them much weight until I get a sense of their taste and style preferences over time.

Hi Mike, Thanks for commenting. However, I think we may be on two different tracks here: from my perspective in Madison, the concern is not a lack of worthy artists and arts orgs to write about. On the contrary, there's more than can be covered thoroughly. (We've got two art museums, any number of private galleries, the standard trifecta of symphony-opera-ballet, professional and community theater, an excellent film festival and book festival, etc. Plenty of good stuff to go around for a city of about 225,000.) For example, I could stroll down to the State Capitol building tonight and catch a free outdoor concert by the Wisconsin Chamber Orchestra, part of their enormously popular summer series.

So my concern (speaking only for myself) is not so much the quantity or quality of local arts, but the lack of dialogue surrounding it, as least as far as print media is concerned (dialogue between readers and writers, that is). Even in the absence of controversy, I wish readers would fire off a quick e-mail or two to papers to let them know they want arts coverage. If readers don't speak up for what they enjoy, it's not good. I realize this is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it's what I would ideally like to see.

The last time I can remember public debate about an artwork in Madison was when a new sculpture was put up next to Camp Randall on the UW-Madison campus. The piece by Donald Lipski provoked a lot of derision and phallic jokes from columnists and the public, but what annoyed me about the whole episode is that few people really considered it AS A WORK OF ART. There was little consideration of the artist's intent, how it related to the site, etc. Love it or hate it (and it's not great), I would at least have hoped people could discuss it as an artwork. (I wrote something about it but am unable to link since my paper wasn't putting most articles online at that time.)

Mike Boehm continues:

Bottom line: you have no control over reader response; the best you can do is the best you can do; art that elicits a strong emotional/intellectual response, pro or con, will probably elicit your best writing, and that's what will probably be most likely to grab readers, whether or not they take the time to post a comment. If they mention your story to their hairdresser or the checkout person at the grocery, that's a resounding success you and your paper's Internet-hits beancounters will never know about. As the immortal Tug McGraw said, "Ya gotta believe."

I've never worked in "Flyover" terrain, but it would seem that the electronic age presents reviewers with an opportunity: If your local artists are failing to generate quality or at least worthy attempts at meaningful work that are worth commenting on, you could perhaps start a regular feature about arts programming available on TV, the Internet or via Netflix, picking works that somehow might resonate with your community (in Savannah, maybe art inspired by the Civil War and its continuing aftermath would be a priority, or dramatizations of works by Southern writers). That would be more likely to get your readers talking and perhaps talking back, and maybe give your local artistes a better notion of what they should be aiming for. I just found out yesterday that BBC radio channels 3 and 4 have weekly radio plays that stream on its website. It's as accessible in Missoula as it is in Manhattan, so go for it if you can make what's there, or elsewhere on the Internet, relevant to your readership. Also, your editors might even check out arts you write about on TV/Internet/Netflix, just to see if you really know what you're talking about -- possibly a nice change from being the semi-necessary but easily ignored window-dressing that I'm afraid most hard news folks consider the arts beat to be. Another idea: review the local library's arts offerings in print, audio and video. Do they have materials that could help a high school kid cultivate an interest in drama or in classical music? Do they carry the books/performances of native sons and daughters who've made a mark in the arts world? And the full array of fiction set in your region? If the collection is found wanting, you might effect some change, or at least get a rise from the public.