In four brief paragraphs on the Guardian Unlimited Arts Blog, British critic Lyn Gardner manages to capture the gist of an issue that those who follow theatre, and theatre criticism, closely have no doubt wondered about.
She begins:
What separates theatre critics from other theatregoers? Not a great deal. We are lucky enough to have a platform and get paid for our opinions, but otherwise the main thing that distinguishes us is the fact that we see so much. Most weeks I go to the theatre about six times. Seeing as broad a range of work as possible, in as many locations as possible, is invaluable for any critic, but is there a danger of seeing too much?
Her blog entry offers no particular answer, but it’s heartening to see a critic grappling with such an issue, rather than the subjects of critics trying to rationalize what appears in print.
As a corollary to this, I have always mused on the entirely impractical idea that critics be rotated around the country, changing cities every two or three years, so that in this era of almost entirely one-newspaper towns, no one critical opinion can hold sway over the work of any given theatrical community or company. The only way this could ever happen would be if every newspaper had the same owner, and they imposed such a rotation. Perhaps that might be one of the very few positive effects of media consolidation.
Posted on Friday, August 31st, 2007 at 11:01 am
by
Howard Sherman
Filed under:
Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0 feed.
You can
leave a response, or
trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
