Thursday, February 28, 2008

Mailbag--Where Do You Get Off?

Question: Where do you get off?

That depends on if I'm picking up the little one before going home, or if the wife is--or if I'm heading to a rehearsal or a show. (Seeing Fatboy tonight.) If you're speaking in a more pejorative sense, I'm many things. I'm passionate, intelligent, confident, caring, honest, hopeful and loyal. I'm also opinionated, idealistic, stubborn, vocal, have little sympathy for whining and have high expectations/standards. For better or worse, I make no qualms about where I stand on much of any thing. I'm not always correct, nor perfect. I tend to be firm but fair. I prefer strength over weakness and humility over hypocrisy. Don't much like long walks, but I do like the beach. If you really care, I'd encourage you to hang out and read what you will. On the sidebar are links to some of my most frequent topics. You can decide for yourself. (And I'm sure my beautiful wife will correct me if I'm wrong, she's good at keeping me in check like that)

Question: I was told about your insults toward me on your blog. I read what you posted. I am trying to understand why you would run a theatre company and then insult reviewers? What do you gain from doing that? --Tom Williams

Probably worth noting that what I write on my blog is not necessarily the views of Halcyon Theatre. It is not accidental I have a blog separate from Halcyon's.

I will begin with a question. How is my critiquing reviews online different from your reviewing shows online?

I stand by what I wrote. The review in question was, in my judgment, poorly written and not a good example of criticism. If you feel insulted by my critique that is your right. I did not insult you. I commented on what I felt was a poorly written review. Feel free to disagree.

Any critic unable to withstand having their work critiqued, should not be critiquing other's work in a public arena. I would say the same about artists. If one is unable to hear any criticism, they should not be performing in public.

If you are referring to the preface as being an insult, than again, that is your right. But know, there are still people who do not feel you should be included in a list of critics, due to past events. I think to not include you would have been an insult. However, if inclusion is the case--I hold you to the same high standards I would any other critic. Bad criticism is bad for the theatre, just as bad shows are.

I am not beholden to critics, in my work, or in my writing. I do have a tremendous respect for critics and the role their writing can and should play in theatre. There is little discussion about contemporary criticism and I feel theatre as a whole suffers from this. A greater understanding of the role of criticism and fostering conversation is what I hope to gain, especially in our era of ever shrinking coverage. Please note: I also single out what in my opinion is the best of criticism and writing about theatre.

If you wish to read more of my thoughts, I would invite you to look through the posts on my blog. Especially those on the sidebar. If you click on the links under "Getting Critical" or "WTF is Art?" (A tongue in cheek title) you can see my thoughts more clearly.


His Response: My question isn't about your insults, it is about why you bother to critique critics when you are a well know(n) artistic director? How can taking shots at reviewers do anything but hurt you? What is the upside of that?

I personally don't care what you say or think. I have established myself as a "theatre friendly" reviewer. Last year I reviewed over 300 shows (for the 3rd year in a row) and I think I "not recommended" only 17 of 312. I am only the messenger.

I wear many hats. Being an Artistic Director is but one. I don't feel that disqualifies me from writing about criticism, any more than a critic should be automatically disqualified from creating art. Conversation is a good thing for theatre. That cannot happen if one side remains silent. I could cower in fear of the almighty critics. What kind of artist, or leader of a company would that make me? More importantly what kind of a father would that make me if that was the behavior my son learned from me?

I'm actually a stronger defender of the role of critics than anyone I know, and choose engagement over cowardice. It may come back to bite me in the ass. But so could silence. And to be fair, whether you agree with me or not, I'm not simply taking pot shots at critics.

If anyone has any questions they'd like to send in, email them to me at raskolnikovj AT gmail DOT com. And remember: there are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions.

14 comments:

Paul Rekk said...

Tony, the problem I have been holding tacitly with Critiquing the Critics is that it is not so much a discussion on healthy criticism as it is a nebulous (and undoubtedly biased - as artistic criticism is bound to be) recreation of what you see as good and/or bad with the field.

Devilvet jokingly raised a question on the comments a while back about who you are going to have to answer to. It's actually quite a valid question. By what means are you critiquing the critics? We need to know what we are holding you to in your subjective opinion.

Neither of last week's best reviews were anything I would qualify as eligible were I pursuing the same goal. Investigative theatre journalism is still a form of theatre journalism, yes, but improv is still a form of theatre and not many of the critics you have on your roster review improv. What standards are you using for your critiques? Why does investigative theatre journalism count? If it does, that's fine, but we need to know that -- because I was surprised by those inclusions, and honestly, they felt a bit like a copout.

Also, it's no secret that I'm not a big fan of Tom Williams. It's not a personal attack or a grudge or any of that measly crap. I just don't think Tom does good work (and if Tom ever doesn't think I do good work -- I'm not sure, he's never reviewed a show I had a major stake in -- I'd encourage him to say so as well). However, my comments were never intended to say that Tom shouldn't be included in this project. He absolutely has every right to be on the list. However, seeing as how your assessment of his work is in line with mine, I'm going to move forward on the assumption that a Tom Williams review is going to be one of the worst reviews every week. And if there's ever a week that it's not, I'll be the first to call you out and ask why not; understandably, it won't be easy picking on the same guy for what you see as the same shortcomings week after week after week. It'll even seem mean after a while. But the moment you give into that urge and give him (or whoever) a break one week, any facade of honest reporting you may have set up will be shattered.

You see, I just don't understand the purpose, Tony. You seem to realize that part of the reason that we don't always have healthy theatre criticism is because of the politics of the thing -- the critic model doesn't always allow for the honesty or the coverage that we want. Why then would you force the discussion of the topic into the same model?

And lastly (if I may be a little blunt), your criticism of the critics, while not bottom of the barrel, certainly isn't the most incisive reporting, either. Were you to be included in the critics you are critiquing, I'd place you right about middle of the road. And if you're going to judge these people on what they do (many for a living) in the same format that they do, middle of the road just ain't gonna cut it. If Chris Jones and Hedy Weiss put up a revue of pieces of Chicago theatre they loved and hated, you better believe it'd have to be a knockout to not become reviled in the theatre world.

Dianna said...

i personally LOVE the "critiqueing" of the critics.

And in response to the question "How can taking shots at reviewers do anything but hurt you? What is the upside of that?", to this I say... are critics ABOVE reproach? Are they on some un-reachable pedestal that the quality of their actual writing cannot be put under the microscope?
I've read each of Tony's "critiques" so far, and all I see is him being critical about the SUBSTANCE and CONTENT fo the review. I agree - if you can't handle that kind of criticism about your writing, you shouldn't do it.

Tony said...

PR,

running late so I can't respond as fully as I'd like. I'll try to respond more fully tomorrow.

A lot of what I'm trying to do is simply to highlight the best and worst of writing on theatre, both stories and reviews each week. This is subjective and as I see it.

If you have different ones you'd have picked, please add 'em to the comments. Hopefully people will discuss those in the comments. Discussion is the sole overarching purpose of most of what I write here.

I will try next week to list a more codified criteria for you at what I look at. It's only the third week coming up, so there probably will be a "getting my feet wet" period, as I'm figuring this segment out as I go as well.

While I jokingly answered DV last weekend, I'll have to answer to whoever reads them and responds.

While I hope to do better than middle of the road, I by no means expect the type of long-form incisive writing seen in something like Shakespeare our Contemporary while highlightin g a few reviews/stories each week.

Here is a post that lists some of the question I have for myself as I go forward:
http://jayraskolnikov.blogspot.com/2008/02/whos-words-count.html

"Why then would you force the discussion of the topic into the same model?"

I don't know that I'm forcing anything. If you have any you'd like to suggest, send 'em to me.

Tony said...

sorry link didn't work here it is in 2 pieces so the whole text will fit

http://jayraskolnikov.blogspot.com/
2008/02/whos-words-count.html

Bilal said...

"How can taking shots at reviewers do anything but hurt you? What is the upside of that?"

Look, I think it's great that Tom likes so much of what he sees in Chicago's theatre (and yes, he sees damn close to all of it, as well as productions in the outlying towns and suburbs). Perhaps it can be argued that he could be more discerning, but he's a nice tonic to those critics who seem to hate productions for the sheer joy that comes with hating something.

But this question he posed to you is a prime example of why the relationship is broken. Tom does seem to view the critic as a being on high, immune from any rebuttal to his sacrosanct opinions. His question is a thinly veiled threat of retaliation against you or your company, going forward, which I would call "unprofessional" except that it seems to in fact be the hallmark of "professionalism" in the critical field to wield that kind of grudge.

I do not find Tom's criticism particularly insightful, and little annoys me more than when his reviews indulge in his occasional penchant for offering "I would have" statements, such as "I would have cut the second act." But if he believes himself to be an honest critic of the theatre he views, then he has no business making such statements as the above. The shows he reviews need to be judged on their merits, not on whether or not somebody involved with the show once said an essay he wrote was sloppy.

To behave otherwise is to show that he has no interest in being a supporter or developer of the art as a whole...it is to show that he enjoys the power of his opinion to influence.

And he's not alone. Which is why I say the model is broken.

Anonymous said...

Whereas we might have our feelings about how shows are reviewed, and it might serve our own sense of catharsis (rather than our own interests) to provide criticism of the critic...If what we want is better, more through, or hell any sort of change to the critical model, I think that would best (hell not even best..probably only possibly occur) in the event that the readers of the reviews respond.

And when I say readers, I mean the audience of the paper that is theatre going, not theatre making.

I can already sense the rebuttal, "But we who make theatre are also in the group of those who see theatre, so our opinion counts..." which I equate to a politician complaining about how they are covered in the press when they get a vote and as a result are part of their own constituency(sp?).

As much as any reviewer in a major paper might see themselves as an advocate for the scene, isn't their prime purpose to be an advocate for the consumer (not the one who produces?)

I have yet to hear anarguement that I thought could convince a reviewer or editor that they should validate the notion that we behind the curtain get to wear both hats.

-dv

Tony said...

DV--is being a consumer advocate the main responsibility of a critic?

Anonymous said...

Weekly/Daily periodicals like Reader, Timeout, New City, Windy City...yes absolutely.

Advocacy of the artist or local culture scene is a wonderful (sometimes) side effect of reviews. But reviewers are not penning reviews in the hopes that the participants of the show will read it and consider it, the way one would dramaturgical, directoral, or any other sort production notes. If they are, then I think their editors will inform them that they are missing the point.

You as artistic director, production director, playwright, actor, designer, etc. are not their audience.

The critic is part of the process of making theater, but they are not in any way a collaborator to making theater unless they are invited to offer criticism directly to the theater maker before the show goes up (which might then jepordize the illusion of objectivity in their reporting).

A theater review is not a conversation between artist and critic. It is a conversation between critic and consumer.

Hence, your opinions of a reviewer based upon your identity as a theater maker?...irrelevant to the periodical printing the review...and ulitmately carry little weight to the editor or reviewer.

They can, and the best do... extend courtesy to the theater maker, but they are under no assumed or otherwise obligation to anyone other than their readers.

They can (if they choose) champion a company that they like. However, the paradigm behind that always is that it benefits primarily the reader not the theater (of course it can benefit both, but the reader is first and foremost).

Hence, if you want the nature of theater criticism in this city to change significantly, you need the readers of the reviews to raise their voices, not the subject of the reviews.

-dv

Anonymous said...

I would like to add Tony, that I don't have an issue with your posts on criticism. However, I would liken them to Kevin Heckman's Review Roundup. And, I may be projecting but I think there is more ambition on your part here than summation of weekly theater criticism.

Also, I don't think that the majority of theater reviewers or editors in this town would phrase the issue of your recent posts in as machivellian terms as Tom Williams did.

At best, the excerpt of his first email suggests he cannot conceive how a reviewer could be objective once receiving scruity (a notion I think his breathen would find insulting) or at worst ...it is a warning.

If the excerpts accurately reflect the content of his emails (which I don't doubt, but still qualify)...It reflects poor judgement on his part to have sent it.

I might be wrong, but I'll bet you haven't received any such similar prognostications of your impending self ifflicted doom from any of the other reviewers in town. Am I wrong?

-dv

Tony said...

". . . reviewers are not penning reviews in the hopes that the participants of the show will read it and consider it . . ."

I disagree, and critics I've talked to did as well.

"A theater review is not a conversation between artist and critic. It is a conversation between critic and consumer."

Once again, I humbly disagree. It is both. See the reviews of Stuck I linked to on Saturday. Both clearly aim to speak both to reader and artist.

"Hence, if you want the nature of theater criticism in this city to change significantly, you need the readers of the reviews to raise their voices, not the subject of the reviews."

Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate? The irony is that a fair amount of the readership is in fact artists.

If you're saying that because one of the things I do is making theatre my opinions are irrelevant, and I have no business writing about criticism, that is your choice. I humbly disagree.

I think Leonard Jacobs said it well recently when he said "I believe that to support the separation of critics and artists is to drive a stake into the heart of the art form."

Besides, for the most part, the majority of people who read my blog --or at least those who've commented or linked to a post) are artists and critics. I am under no illusion that my writing here is being seen by the general public.

Tony said...

DV--"And, I may be projecting but I think there is more ambition on your part here than summation of weekly theater criticism."

My ambition, as I've said before, (at least with this series) is to foster a conversation on criticism.

I truly feel that the lack of conversation between critics, artists and audience is detrimental to the health of Theatre. It very well may be a quixotic ambition, time will tell.

And those weren't excerpts, they were the emails in their entirety. The only thing left out of the blog from the emails was a sentence of mine to him when I emailed my initial response to Mr. Williams before I posted anything and before his second response: "FYI, I will probably post this on my blog as well. You are entitled to have your objections posted alongside my critique. If you have any more questions, concerns or comments feel free to contact me." Perhaps I should have included that on the blog as well?

You are correct, I haven't received any other doomsday wishes, at least not that I know of :)

It may be naive, but I think honest, open discussion is healthy, even if it gets heated.

Devilvet said...

Re: The Stuck reviews

I guess we'll have to disagree who is the true audience. If you are referring to the closing of Abarbanel's review, I have to say I see it is more as "performance" for the sake of the audience of the reader. Like when Steven Colbert speaks to whomever is the subject of his monologue.

If you are referring to Vire's review, you are going to have to help me out. what I see is alot of contextualization for those not in the know about the culture of readings/workshops to be clear with his readers why he has to qualify how/if Stuck is worth the readers' time.

I am sure that all critics want to see great theater. How else could they devote the time and energy to what they do? I am sure they deep down want what is best for their local scene. I don't doubt that a critic would want their work to improve upon the art in their community.

But that is very different from the notion of a reviewer writing production notes for the artists' benefit in a public forum. Or even 'slipping them in' to their reviews.

"Hence, if you want the nature of theater criticism in this city to change significantly, you need the readers of the reviews to raise their voices, not the subject of the reviews...If you're saying that because one of the things I do is making theatre my opinions are irrelevant, and I have no business writing about criticism, that is your choice. I humbly disagree."

I wouldn't argue that your writing is irrelvant. I don't think I said that. I am talking about what I think are tactics toward change. It appeared to me that the whole reason for this 'critic of the critics' was to affect a change overall in theater criticism in Chicago. I can get behind that.

But, if we think of our efforts as a lever to move criticism in a certain direction, the fulcrum has to lie with the readers of the review rather than the subject of the review.

I would add that even though many theater makers are reading the reviews in lets say TOC...we don't make up even 10% of the audience reading that review. If we did, than TOC wouldn't have enough readership to sustain itself.

So, In that regard, when you provide commentary to the review, if your identity is "Theater maker" rather than "reader" expect me as the editor to question whether your criticisms of how I do my job have a bearing on my relationship to 90%+ of my readership, my audience (who ultimately are paying my salary).

You wanted me to elaborate on the statement about reader vs subject of a review? I thought it was clear, but let me try... The reader of the reviewer to a vast majority the theater going audience, which is still comprised of more non-theater makers than not in this town.

The subject of the review is the play itself and those who make the play.

Now in an environment of such immediate proximty between critics and artists like Chicago, there are always bound to be for lack of a better term 'incestuous' relationships...i.e. the critic who sometimes acts in a show, or the artistic director who has beers often with the reviewer, or the reader of a review who happens to make theater.

But if we consider the theatrical review as journalism, there is the subposition (whether fictional or not) That the subject of the journalism and the journalist maintain a relationship that enables objectivity.

That is why whenever a journalist reports on an item relating to the corporation that signs the check, they qualify their reporting (or should) becuase the audience/reader is expecting the journalist to be their advocate, not the subject's advocate. When the advocacy of the reader and the subject are in alignment than huzzah! You've got a feel good story. But that is a matter of happenstance rather than intent. The intent should be objective journalism.

If you didn't agree with my analogy in an earlier comment about a politician running for office and their relationship to a journalist criticizing them...Than I am at a loss how to further this part of our conversation.

"Besides, for the most part, the majority of people who read my blog --or at least those who've commented or linked to a post) are artists and critics. I am under no illusion that my writing here is being seen by the general public."

I get that. I think that is actually the point I'm trying to make. That if change is the objective, than the tactic has to be to get "the general public" invested in the conversation. Until then I believe that change is possible, but it isn't as effective.

To be simplistic about it, the people lies within the people, the general public.

-dv

Devilvet said...

Tony,

As I said, I don't doubt your intent or judgement regarding those tom Williams emails...it was just a "crossing my Ts and doting my Is" sort of statement. No harm I hope.

"I truly feel that the lack of conversation between critics, artists and audience is detrimental to the health of Theatre."

I agree. And, I would amplify that to say that if all 3 aren't involved in the conversation it more than just a missed opportunity...It is then significantly lacking. I'm not trying to fling poop at you. I'm politely requesting that we get the third party to the table ASAP, and that we don't mistakely think that it is enough for 2 of the 3parties to sit in on the conversation if one of them is wearing 2 hats.

"to foster a conversation on criticism."

But, to what end Tony? To say that the above statement is the sum total of ambition regarding the series...well, I just don't think it ends there. The reason for the conversation is that there is a lack of satisfaction hence a desire toward change even if incremental. If there wasn't there wouldnt be a conversation in the first place.

I think honest, open discussion is healthy, even if it gets heated.\

Absolutely! Isn't that what we're doing? Right now? ;)

Devilvet said...

the people lies within the people, the general public.

uhhhhhhh...I meant the power lies within

-dv

Post a Comment