Should Critics Go To Lunch With Artists?

Oh, and another thing.

On the effect of advertising on art (and apparently entertainment) criticism, please forgive the following morbid and overblown analogy:

On 9/11 and shortly thereafter, planes were not allowed to fly. A wise friend remarked, "The reason so many people died is that they were all concentrated in one place at the same time. They shouldn't outlaw planes; they should outlaw skyscrapers."

The reason advertisers can flex such muscle is that the traditional printed review is a massive concentration of relatively immovable analysis. Easily toppled by someone who gets pissed. I welcome the day when criticism as a multi-directional, ongoing dynamic conversation is the norm rather than the exception. Try hitting that with a plane.

There is a difference between "going to lunch" and "becoming buddies." I write for an alt weekly and consider the former not only acceptable, but mandatory in order to get an accurate picture of the art scene.

The latter is very different and I routinely recuse myself from writing criticism about the half dozen artists in my closest immediate circle of friends. Appearance matters.

The truth is that only critics in a few mega markets can afford even to come up with such an effete set of ethics. That's why this notion unsurprisingly comes out of New York, where there are literally millions of people in the arts industries, most in highly specialized roles. When you're dealing with a much smaller market, where you've got maybe 1000 core people, each of whom is simultaneously an artist, a writer, a gallerist, a curator, and a night clerk at the local Best Western, the notion of never having a meal with one of them is ludicrous.

In an ideal world, all newspapers would have separate positions for arts feature writers and critics. The reality for the vast majority of markets is far different, and has been for much longer than "the past decade or so." The uneasy balance of a single reporter/critic writing a feature, then potentially slamming the subject in a review, is something I and, I suspect, most of my colleagues have lived with since the early '80s. Artists understand it. Critics understand it. And still we occasionally have lunch together. But nothing can change what happens on stage after a feature has been written.

Far more disturbing than merging duties are the "buyouts" (firings) of arts staff members. Perhaps casinos can do quite nicely without arts reporting and criticism, but chamber music, ballet, opera, symphony and the like need informed arts writers, even if they must wear more than one hat. Here's hoping arts organizations in places like Minneapolis, Kansas City and Miami can stay afloat without their classical music/dance staffers.

thanks for your comments Mr. Weaver. I am talking about arts writing in all its forms -- not just reviews / criticism. I believe it's possible to writing in an engaging, informed, analytical AND opinionated style, in spite of changing relationships between artists and journalists.

"...to deliver smarter, deeper and more committed writing about the arts." suggests critques, as in art criticism, as opposed to reviews, which many publishers prefer, since it requires less knowledge about art by the average reader.(One
performing art reviewer for a southwest newspaper, was critical of most of the cabaret acts, and rightfully so, at that time. The casino responded by telling the publisher that unless their cabaret acts received better reviews, the casino would stop all their newspaper advertising...guess what the outcome was.(!)
The Arts are presently spiraling to hell, and it will take the printed word in the form of art criticism, to reverse that spiral. So to borrow a phrase from Bob Dylan,:
"Now ain't the time for your tears."