What has happened to criticism of the arts in the media?
Have we, the public and the cognoscenti become unable to tell the difference between good and bad in the arts, or are we being subjected to a campaign of ‘promotion of mediocrity’? If it’s the latter, who is responsible?
What has happened to criticism of the arts in the media?
When I go to a major theatre and see a production, which has been given a five star rating, in which the choreography is at best boring, at worst terrible, should I question the quality of the critic? Should I question the critic if the actors were inaudible and yet the play was given the almost ubiquitous five stars? Should I question the curator for putting on a ‘block buster’ exhibition which shows paintings which the long gone artist didn’t want anyone to see, and rightly so, yet the gallery publicity and the press rave about it.
The basic format, used for decades in the UK press, is for the critic to give a star rating. You’ve seen it, and perhaps booked tickets, bought the book or the CD based on the rating.
My understanding of the formula of the five stars is that one star will mean it isn’t good, not worth seeing, I shouldn’t waste my money. Two stars will mean that there is a little bit of good in it. I might enjoy some of it. Three stars tell me that it’s worth spending my money, but not to expect anything out of the ordinary. Four stars indicate something special. Originality and excitement. Expect to be entertained and to have gained something from the experience. Five stars mean that here is that rare thing in the arts (in music, in dance, in drama, in visual art, in literature) perfection. Something worth experiencing at any cost.
If my understanding is correct, and that giving something five stars, or five out of five, or one hundred percent must mean it is perfect, then what has happened? Have I got it wrong?
Best, Andrew
I have an example: the much-praised ‘Servant of Two Masters’, based on a Golfini classic, turned out to be superficial ham-acted slapstick.
Good to hear from you David. Is there any chance of you coming up to my open studio? See the Open Studio blog which has just gone out.
Best, Andrew
This is really great adicve. I’ve long felt that overuse of profanity by a writer is primarily a way to generate traffic and / or get people buzzing about them. It hides the fact that there are usually more eloquent ways to express the same thought (not to say a well timed cuss word doesn’t work on occasion). Love this post, I found it through one of your comments posted elsewhere. Thanks!
Great post, and very helpful to me. I’ve been bliggong a while but still feel like a novice. I’ve changed my blog design about a million times frilly, plain, professional, artsy and now just back to pretty. (I just want a pretty place to call my own!) I know that content is most important, though. Struggling with how to build community. (I tried replying at my blog to each comment, but that took time away from visiting other blogs.) Your blog is amazing.
Absolutely agree. Mercifully, my last show was only given 4 stars, so noone was disappointed by false hopes of a perfect show! Nowadays it seems 5 stars means – for goodness sake book a ticket, we’re desperate to get bums on seats otherwise we’ll have to close early!
So many ‘major’ exhibitions – whether of art or antiquities – seem to be indulgences by the curator who creates a spurious argument that a mixture or good, bad and indifferent exhibits are deemed to support. The critics seem to love this, as do the punters who stand in front of exhibits with their headphones on – listening to the argument rather than examining the evidence. And the money rolls in. But isn’t it different for the mass media? Isn’t there more objectivity for cinema, books and – I’m told – video games, the newest art form?
Hi Nigel,
I don’t believe that video games are the newest art form. Walt Disney did it all many many years ago, and he did it better even without all the computer animation. Then it was really art.
Best, Andrew