A Critic’s Manfiesto by Meredith Roberts
Over the semester we have evaluated and tried our hand at a number of critical writings. I found that while I’m not the best or most esteemed critic at all of the subjects we reviewed, each person has their own original taste and biases to account for in their experience of a certain event. Whether it is a play, concert, restaurant, book reading or another medium of artistic release – the arts require a conversation, a dialogue, about the meaning behind human expression. This conversation is the responsibility of the critic: begin it, enhance it, encourage it - in your own community.
I reject the claims that a critic must be well established or controversial to have an opinion. The worst review we read, in my opinion, was by the big boss of criticism, the New York Time’s own rMichiko Kakutani. Without bashing her or name calling, I’ll say I think its important that a critic’s words hold value and meaning, and that they communicate with the audience that avidly seeks the review.
The critic’s influence has an interesting place in today’s wavering economy. As newspapers go online (and out of business), it is still important for people to know what to spend their money on. What is worthy of the little bit of extra cash we have in our wallets, our pockets, or sitting on the floorboard of our cars? The critic should tell us that.
The most important thing I learned about the role of the critic is the importance of the writer’s willingness to expose their biases. If the critic does this, no opinion is supreme, no artistic work is complete crap or unworthy of any audience at all. Subjectivity and honesty are at the center of the critic’s role. This honesty and the dialogue between art, critic and community are essential – though I wish it could be done without the presence of message boards, which seem to take the focus away from the criticism or the artistic piece and bring the dialogue to a level that is worthy of some criticism itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment