Arguing with myself...
by Charlie Goetz
It occurs to me that my last rant (about freeing art from irrelevant competitive and market forces) needs a postscript to cancel the possible implication that all art works are of equal weight and aesthetic value. Not true!Certainly the paintings of Van Gogh and Andy Warhol are more impactful than those of the painter who gave us those big-eyed, bug-eyed kids, a generation or so ago. And to lump the sappy Rod McKuen with master poets like Eliot and Auden is to invite roars of ridicule.
Enter the critic. Artists, particularly those who work in theater, are perhaps rightly suspicious of critics--whom they equate with negativity. But a good, knowledgable critic can be an invaluable teacher and guide, shining light on important (especially new) work and leading us to fuller appreciation.You want to pick your critic carefully, though. There are those who are in love with their own words and therefore color their commentary not to illuminate an art work but to dazzle the reader with their own brilliance. Then there are those who are in love with their subject and that affection shows through in every sentence they write.
Walter Kerr, late of the New York Times drama desk, comes to mind.When newspaper strikes reduced the number of New York dailies to three, Kerr, then head Times theater critic, decided that his paper would wield too much power over the fate of productions entering the arena. So Kerr split the Times' critical responsibilities, engaging another "chief" and effectively halving his own influence. Ethics like that deserve attention and emulation. Today, there is a Broadway theater named for Walter Kerr.
PPS-I guess I wouldn't object to Oscars (or Tonys or Emmys) going to, say, the five or so nominees in each category. Plural winners would acknowledge the excellence of representatives of a year's crop without forcing the alligator pears-and-peaches comparison necessary to choose a single "victor."
It occurs to me that my last rant (about freeing art from irrelevant competitive and market forces) needs a postscript to cancel the possible implication that all art works are of equal weight and aesthetic value. Not true!Certainly the paintings of Van Gogh and Andy Warhol are more impactful than those of the painter who gave us those big-eyed, bug-eyed kids, a generation or so ago. And to lump the sappy Rod McKuen with master poets like Eliot and Auden is to invite roars of ridicule.
Enter the critic. Artists, particularly those who work in theater, are perhaps rightly suspicious of critics--whom they equate with negativity. But a good, knowledgable critic can be an invaluable teacher and guide, shining light on important (especially new) work and leading us to fuller appreciation.You want to pick your critic carefully, though. There are those who are in love with their own words and therefore color their commentary not to illuminate an art work but to dazzle the reader with their own brilliance. Then there are those who are in love with their subject and that affection shows through in every sentence they write.
Walter Kerr, late of the New York Times drama desk, comes to mind.When newspaper strikes reduced the number of New York dailies to three, Kerr, then head Times theater critic, decided that his paper would wield too much power over the fate of productions entering the arena. So Kerr split the Times' critical responsibilities, engaging another "chief" and effectively halving his own influence. Ethics like that deserve attention and emulation. Today, there is a Broadway theater named for Walter Kerr.
PPS-I guess I wouldn't object to Oscars (or Tonys or Emmys) going to, say, the five or so nominees in each category. Plural winners would acknowledge the excellence of representatives of a year's crop without forcing the alligator pears-and-peaches comparison necessary to choose a single "victor."
Comments