More required reading on local criticism

With this thoughtful analysis on Minneapolis-St.Paul magazine's website, Brian Lambert goes some distance toward restoring my sympathy and empathy for local journalists. (Many of the initial reactions I heard were so defensive and dismissive of Melodie's article that I couldn't keep myself from counting all the times I've heard journalists complain to me about childish, thin-skinned theater folk and getting more than a bit frustrated at the hypocrisy.) Please read it. And, while not a direct response to Melodie's article, Dominic Papatola's Sunday column lays out what he believes criticism should do. (More on this in our video interview Feb. 16.)

Good theater criticism can and should steer a middle path: It should provide enough reporting to give a sense of what alchemic thing happened in the theater on one given night. It should impart sufficient context to help an audience understand why what happened matters — if, in fact, it does. And it should present enough informed and leavened opinion to give readers the tools necessary to decide whether what occurred within those four walls is worthy of their time, their energy and their money. If it can do all that and entertain, or amuse, or enlighten or provoke along the way, then a critic earned his or her paycheck that day. But criticism shouldn't be concerned with certainty, at least not on a regular basis. How can it? Critics are individuals, bringing their own biases to the theater along with their notebooks and their poison pens. What sings to me will squawk to you and vice versa. And anyone who tells you there's only one way — to run a country, to make art, to find enlightenment — is worse than wrong: They're ignorant, and they're myopic and they're dangerous

By providing such an explicit explanation, he provides a service both to arts patrons and artists. The former should know his biases and intentions, so that they know how to incorporate his admittedly-personal opinion in to their ticket-purchasing decisions. The latter should know the same: remember that though his writing appears in the newspaper, even the newspaper critic doesn't consider it the last word on the production. Don't take it so hard. Questions: Do you agree with his definition of good and bad criticism? And, also important, does he practice what he preaches?