MIGHT THERE BE A WAY TO ELECT THEATRE CRITICS?

Convener(s): ERICA WHYMAN 

Participants: ROD, TASSOS, MATT, KATE, TOM, ADRIAN AND …..??????

FORGIVE ME I DIDN’T ASK YOUR NAMES, PLEASE ADD THEM TO THIS!

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

 

THE ISSUE

that so much theatre of very different forms is communicated to the public through the taste and views of a very small number of national theatre critics

We established that the question referred to a desire to ask audiences and potential audiences to elect, or have some say in, who the critics are and how their needs are best met by critical writing.

No-one was suggesting or was in favour of artists electing critics. 

Concerns voiced regarding the danger of censorship – we must cherish our right to free speech.

 

A SENSE

• that we needed a more democratic system of criticism that included more voices and gave less credence to the established few. 
• That even those not attending the theatre are influenced by the star-rating, pithy reviews displayed outside Wet-End theatres. 
• and a desire to see more robust debate between critics and artists regarding interpretation of the art form. 
• That there is a yearning for the time when critics argued in the national press over what was “permitted” in the theatre. 
• that in dance, for instance, there is much more creative writing which is a “critique” of the work discussed but much more thorough than the opinion pieces which dominate the theatre pages. 
• That theatre criticism rarely communicates the fact that theatre is a live event which changes every night.
• That the same reductive techniques required to “sell” an expensive ticket which needs to have the risk removed for the customer, are applied to criticism of risk-taking inexpensive theatre e.g “exhilarating” or “bleak”.
• that our theatre reviewers in general are too specialist in their taste and interests, and “no-one would expect a judge at Crufts to know only about Chihuahuas” 

 

AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT

that theatres and companies are driven by marketing imperatives to display and celebrate only short, positive, national quotes

And that Newspapers are writing for their readers, not for our audiences, and arts editors’ space is continually being reduced.  A report that the Guardian can no longer undertake any features that are not ”personality-led”.  That as theatre artists we should be creating alternative spaces for opinions to be published rather than expecting our critics’ agendas to change.  That the web will dominate in ten years’ time, and therefore the monopoly of the few voices in print will naturally dissipate.

 

AN INTEREST

In unlocking a wider range of views.  This resulted in a discussion of “utopian” democratic models, how to harness web-based discussion/blog pages to retrieve a mixture of extreme and moderate comments on productions and display them  Tassos described a version which would allow writers and “readers” to rate not the shows but the reviews, so that audiences could have a sense of majority and minority views and see national newspaper reviews in this context.  This system would involve giving free, press, tickets to a large number of “engaed” audience members and moderatinga  web forum where they were encouraged to write at least 50 words in response.

 

A PLEDGE

• That buildings and companies represented will display quotes from other sources, especially those written by “ordinary” members of the audience, with equal prominence. 
• That theatres will also build web communities of reviewers and publish a range of views as part of their audience development strategies, and try to convince marketing departments to value honesty as well as brand endorsement. 
• That theatres COULD OFFER AUDIENCES A SHORTLIST OF GUEST REVIEWERS FROM WHICH THEY CAN ELECT SOMEONE FOR A FIXED PERIOD OF TIME.  THIS WOULD INVOLVE THE AUDIENCE IN A NEW AND EXCITING WAY AND INCREASE THE RANGE OF REVIEWERS AND READERS