Don Hall, theater blogger and writer of An Angry White Guy in Chicago, participated in a Time Out Chicago chat discussion in 2008 about how critics fit in with the current culture. That is with the Internet and availability of “amateur” critics versus “professional” ones.
The discussion also included input from Jim DeRogatis, Anne Holub, Sam Jones, Nathan Rabin, Donna Seaman, Chuck Sudo, Mike Sula and moderator, Kris Vire.
Hall, although wasn’t incredibly vocal throughout the discussion, made a connection about education as a vital part of being a critic when he says:
“A good critic should have some knowledge of what it is he is criticizing, but everyone can qualify. Opinions are like assholes and all…”
This makes the point that it is just in human nature to form opinions. It is simply what we do. Several people at this point in the discussion are comparing being passionate about a subject versus educated. Hall’s response to this is, “I think passion and education go hand in had. If you’re passionate about theater, you’ll likely educate yourself about it.”
There is validity in this statement. Many times a college-age individuals will end up despising their time in higher education because they aren’t interested in what they are learning. However, give that student a subject they are interested in, perhaps home brewing a variety of beers or video games, and chances are their attention span will greatly improve. Being a critic works the same.
When someone is passionate about something, they will inform themselves about it. This doesn’t mean it is in the means of a formal education. It is to know enough to speak knowledgably about a subject.
Furthermore, Hall follows the conversational current by stating, “in order to appropriately criticize, a dollop of self-awareness is necessary¾knowing your own prejudices, etc.”
This is also very true because there is nothing more infuriating than reading a “hype-whore” who has nothing of substance to say aside from that the movie was the best thing he or she has ever seen. Ever.
Critics have to be aware of their own prejudices. If they aren’t, they will just knock everything and everyone they don’t like. Which, there is still some legitimacy in their opinion, but they must recognize it’s not the only one out there.
In the argument of having more of a right opinion compared to an amateur reviewer brings the point up about Internet. “The ‘pamphleteers’ of a New Digitalized Age,” is what Hall refers to the blogosphere, the people who are using online mediums as a way to express their opinions. This is in comparison to people who used to publish zines and pass them out.
This allows more than one opinion to get out in the open. It also opens up dialogue for the reader to the writer. “I like comments from readers. I like when they call me an ass. I get a lot of angry e-mails. I try to answer them. The debate is the “sharpening stone.”
Without this criticism for the critic, it is almost is they will never know if they are doing an effective job. Part of the point of reviewing is to argue a case. If one cannot debate, or defend their point, it seems they might be in the wrong profession.
But even after all the debate, worrying about getting paid or what makes one a true expert, Hall seems to find he is in the right profession. After the moderators question about whether or not he would still be in the profession paid or unpaid, Hall responded with “…for all the bitching about money, money has little to do with this thing we do.”
No comments:
Post a Comment