• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

What exactly is the role of the critic? In a world where objective absolutes are impossible, Sue Robertson suggests we should re-evaluate our expectations of critical appraisal.
When Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot agree to insult each other, exchanging epithets such as moron, vermin and sewer-rat, the final and most extreme term of abuse is ?Critic!? Interestingly this did not appear in the original French version and was presumably inserted after reviewers? initial negative responses to the play. It is rare for a playwright to exert the right to reply so directly (Tom Stoppard followed in his footsteps, most notably in The Real Inspector Hound) but expressions of loathing and contempt for critics abound, and theatre and literature seem to feel it most strongly. In the 19th century they were called ?venomous serpents that delight in hissing? (W.B. Daniel, 1801); ?cool, sober murderers of their neighbours? fame? (Coleridge, 1817) and ?a most stupid and malignant race? (Shelley, 1821). More recently, Christopher Hampton is reported as saying ?we are bound to feel about critics as lampposts do about dogs?. For every good word, there are literally hundreds of bad ones, describing critics as an arrogant, parasitic, bitter bunch of failures. With such a bad press over the years, how come they are still in business?

Is it simply that we value their ability to entertain us with wit, world-weariness and occasional verbal fireworks or do they have a broader educational function? Are they there to help make the arts more accessible and to widen audiences ? a current political and cultural concern ? or to deepen the knowledge and understanding of those who are already in the know, helping the cognoscenti to make ever more sophisticated cultural choices?

Descriptive development

What sets reviewers apart from the average punter is their ability to bring a broad frame of reference to bear in a few column inches. They have simply seen more than most of us. Equally important is the capacity to use language in a clear and compelling way. Different markets require different approaches, of course. Writing for a daily tabloid is not the same as for a specialist journal. Different disciplines ? opera, rock, theatre, fashion, architecture and so on ? each have their own specialist vocabularies and their own readership. But in each case, language can be used to illuminate or to obscure.

I have sometimes thought ? and this is a huge generalisation, I know ? that the less an art form relies on words as its medium, the harder it is to develop a broad critical language which sheds light on the work. Take music, for example. The need for a degree of specialist technical analysis means that even the most skilled and vivid of writers will sometimes exclude as well as engage readers. There are art critics who are able to open our eyes through words but, in the visual arts where words rarely intrude, critical language can sometimes appear to construct an edifice around the work, shielding and shadowing as much as illuminating.

Engaging the audience

But helping people to make choices can be over-simplified as well as over-wordy. David Hare recently attacked drama critic, Michael Billington, for conspiring ?in the Guardian?s militantly philistine policy of allocating stars out of five to music, theatre and film. Apart from anything else, why does a self-respecting critic agree to a system of grading that renders his or her detailed reaction superfluous?? Billington?s defence claimed that a four- or five-star review could cause a stampede at the box office and that he was powerless to buck the trend. Neatly side-stepping Hare?s anti-consumerist argument, he resorted to that most popular approach to contemporary decision-making ? asking the audience. He?d better watch out. Either way, it leaves the critic out of a job.

It?s hard to imagine Matthew Arnold asking the audience. His view was that ?criticism is a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world.? Do we still take the enlightened 19th century view that the critic?s role is to arrive at informed conclusions based solely on objective analysis, to know everything we don?t know; or do we like them with a bit of attitude, edgy, contentious, opinionated? Kenneth Tynan said ?I see myself predominantly as a lock. If the key, which is the work of art, fits snugly into my mechanism of bias and preferences, I click and rejoice.?

Critical evolution

For my part ? and here I express a personal preference ? give me attitude every time. A fresh and immediate voice, able to provoke, stimulate and at times enrage, shamelessly thinking for him or herself rather than attempting to think for us all, best suits our times and has more chance of spotting something new and worthwhile. In the past, it may just about have been possible to know everything there was to know and bring it to bear in making refined judgements; today, knowledge and perception are infinite and inter-cultural, varied and virtual, multi-faceted and fast-changing. The strength of many distinct voices, each informed but no one infinitely wise, is the way forward.

The biggest challenge is to support and develop new voices from a much wider range of ages and cultural backgrounds. Do our national critics have five-year renewable contracts or are they there for life? How are they appointed and how are decisions made about whether or not they are doing a good job? Why do these posts not attract the same kind of public interest and scrutiny as the appointment of, say, the Director of the National Theatre? Although they are not concerned with spending public money, their influence on our cultural life is surely just as great. How can we develop imaginative training and career progression that would encourage newcomers to the profession? Rarely do we see a job advertisement for an arts critic in the national press. Perhaps they are still struggling with the person specification? ?Wanted. Original and opinionated writer. Must have wide cultural experience. Unsociable hours. Hissing serpents need not apply.?

Sue Robertson is Dean of the School of Arts at City University. The School unites the University?s departments of Arts Policy and Management, Journalism, Music, and Continuing Education. t: 020 7040 5060;
e: s.robertson@city.ac.uk; w: http://www.city.ac.uk