Read on Twitter
i want to say more about joy and criticism, actually, and i guess about like, criticism more generally and who does it and what it's for https://twitter.com/nonstandardrep/status/1304087096563564544
i feel very strongly that a critic has to be joyful about the work they're dealing with. i don't mean that they have to always write positive reviews, or that they have to have a sunny disposition, or that they have to think that theatre/music/food/movies/w/e are Always Great
what i mean is that they have to be connected to the life-pulse of it, whatever it is. they have to, on a very deep level, be rooting for the thing, hoping for it to succeed. not the field as a whole, but this specific thing, right here, the one they're covering
this is *very different* than thinking that their field/the thing is Important. things that are Important have Cultural Significance, they have Weight, Gravitas. they have to be protected, Appreciated, Stewarded for the next generation
things that you find joy in can be trivial, ephemeral, fun. you don't need to safeguard them or make sure people are appreciating them and Understanding Their Significance, but you might/probably will wanna share them with yr friends. "hey! check this out!"
that's what i mean by joy, that willingness to become wholly enraptured by something, to give yourself over to it because of the subjective experience you have with it, and to want to share that experience with others who might also enjoy it
the critics who inspire me, across fields, all have this. but not everyone does. you can really tell that some people are in it not for the joy of it, but for the Importance of it, so they can give the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down of "is this Art or not?" and dictate...
...what should/shouldn't be Officially Deemed As Culturally Valuable. and it makes these people very cranky
(and, incidentally, these people tend to downplay actual joy in art itself as trivial/insipid/easy to make and pointless to include. it is none of these things)
(and, incidentally, these people tend to downplay actual joy in art itself as trivial/insipid/easy to make and pointless to include. it is none of these things)
Brantley always felt like he belonged in the latter category to me. did he . . . *like* theatre? or did he just think that some plays were Culturally Important and set himself up as a cultural guardian of Those Plays and also Plays Like Them?
and like, this gets at the larger question of like, what is criticism even for, right? because like, up above i mentioned ~being enraptured by something~ and wanting to share that, which sort of makes it sound like criticism is just like, "i liked this/didn't like that". it isn't
or at least, i don't think that's all it is, or all it should be, at its best. worth noting, i think, that a lot of Cultural Guardian critics are essentially doing this kind of criticism, too, it's just that they're disguising their subjective likes and dislikes under a veneer...
...of obfuscation and pseudo-objectivity, by pretending that what they like corresponds to some objective standard of Artistic Quality
but i think that's pretty bunk, or at least pretty boring. i don't really think there are objective standards of artistic quality...
but i think that's pretty bunk, or at least pretty boring. i don't really think there are objective standards of artistic quality...
...(there are things you can measure objectively, like "was this passage in tune or not?" or "is this painting photorealistic?" but i think there are times where aesthetically it's *better* to not be in tune, or to not be photorealistic, or whatever other thing you've measured...
..., and where those times are is obviously going to be a subjective determination), and i don't find conversations that boil down to "i liked this!" "well i didn't!" very interesting. we all have equally valid subjective experiences of the world; there are pieces of music...
...that i wouldn't *dare* defend on "objective" grounds that bring me *profound* joy, and there are others that i think are *exquisitely* crafted that i would never voluntarily listen to. if criticism is just vomiting out your own subjectivity, then yeah, it's pretty useless
but i think, at its best, criticism is more than just spewing subjectivity. i think, at its best, criticism is contextualization. at its best, criticism takes a thing and says, "ok, here's how this thing relates to the context it was made in. here's the pertinent history,...
...here's what others are doing in the present, here's how this thing fits in with other things, with society at large. here's what it's trying to do, what it's trying to say, and here's how it succeeds and fails at doing that"
that's non-trivial work, but it's important work
that's non-trivial work, but it's important work
again, i'm not going to claim all of my criticism hits that mark! but the writing about music that i'm proudest of isn't the stuff that best captures my own subjective experience, it's the stuff that gives readers the best new tools for understanding the music i'm writing about
it's the stuff that made people say "oh, i would never have thought about that piece like that", or "i would never have connected this work to that societal thing, but now that you've said it, it makes so much sense". when people have said that, that's when i know i've done well
and that's why i think criticism is a specific skillset that it's possible to have specific expertise in. we all have a lifetime's worth of experiencing our own subjectivities, but we don't all have practice doing that analysis or the technical knowledge to make those connections
that's not a bad thing! i don't think everyone *needs* the technical skillset of a critic, anymore than everyone *needs* the technical skillset of a carpenter. but like the technical skillset of carpentry, i think the world would be worse if no one had the skillset of criticism
the New York Times will never hire me to replace Ben Brantley, because the New York Times is deeply invested, at the institutional level, in the myth of objectivity. i work in the theatre myself, so they'd see me as a walking talking conflict of interest
Ben Brantley, of course, wasn't actually objective. i don't just mean because he held grudges and was generally kind of petty — tho you'll find *plenty* of people who will happily accuse him of that and more. even if he were the ungrudgiest person ever, he'd still be biased
that's because all of us are. all of us have tastes and preferences and lives and experiences. we don't walk into the theatre as blank slates, we walk in with all our lives in tow, as the people we are. everyone is going to have a different experience of the same show
and everyone is going to think different things are important. i am *deeply* interested in questions of art and power, and deeply *uninterested* in questions of performer technique. i've worked as a sound designer, so i'm biased towards noting sound design choices
as a trans person — as a person who has been traumatized in various ways by coercive systems of gender that exist in US society — i'm biased towards noticing and critiquing how those systems then show up in art
other critics, especially those who have *benefited* from those systems (whether they realize it or not), are biased *against* noticing and critiquing those systems because they perceive them as "normal"/"unremarkable" — and if something is unremarkable, why remark on it?
even setting such questions aside, i think we've all had cases where we saw one play by a playwright, or had one meal at a restaurant, and it wasn't very good, and so then when we go back, we're like "hm, well, the last one was bad, so this probably will be too". that's a bias!
there's no escaping this. i don't think we can, but i also don't think we have to. i think it's possible to have a high degree of self-awareness about one's biases, and to be honest about them, even to the point of disclosing them explicitly in print
this would, i think, be frowned upon in the critic culture of the sort that Brantley's reviews are steeped in, but i think it's a sign of deep humility and grace to say "look, i'm not really the right audience for this thing, so i didn't like it, but that doesn't tell you much"
in the past, at least in music, critics have absolutely been musicians and composers — who better to have the technical expertise to understand and explain what's going on? were some of these reviews shaped by the critic not wanting to upset an artist friend? probably!
have reviews by non-artists been shaped by critics not understanding the technical details of the field they're talking about? let me tell you about the time a *New York Times theatre critic* said that Hamilton *didn't have a book* because it had no spoken dialogue! (y i k e s)
there are pitfalls either way, because *everyone has preconceptions and agendas and preferences and biases and tastes and weird idiosyncratic hangups they can't explain or account for*. *that is the nature of subjectivity*
i can say — and i suspect there will be people who will back me up on this — that i don't pull punches when my friends ask for feedback on their art. even people i really want to work with, if they send me something and are like "hey, what do you think?", i'll tell them
i don't do compliment sandwiches, either, i'll just dive in. "i'm confused by X. Y has some unsavory political implications. Z is a cool moment, but i'm wondering if it can be set up better? here's 4,000 words of analysis about this." people have the e-mails, they'll tell you
and like, performers too. in the rehearsal room, i make a point of not being a dick, but i'm also not going to softball things. "we're having rhythmic difficulties here. you're still not getting the Eb. i'd love for this to be faster; is that possible? rehearsal B is not clean"
like, the kind of feedback i give in public reviews to strangers is the kind of feedback i give in private to friends, just more polished and with a wordcount. i feel very confident saying that. maybe you don't, and that's cool! you don't have to agree with me
you can 100% read my writing and be like "lmao, brin clearly just Has A Vendetta here against [thing/person/org] this isn't a fair criticism" or "wow, brin, why do you always softball so-and-so, they're never gonna commission you!" you can do that! you may even be right!
. . . but in exactly the same way, we can read, say, Brantley, and be like "wow, what do you have against fun? do you even . . . *like* musicals? oh, ok, it's a play by a cishet white guy trying to be the next Arthur Miller, of course you love it." or w/e
if criticism wants to be relevant and vibrant, it needs to be open to voices that actually have thoughtful, nuanced, illuminating things to say, and in my opinion, that necessarily means being open to the opinions of working artists
and, conversely, one of the things you simply have to do as an artist is figure out how to take nuanced, fair criticism of your work. there are a lot of artists out there where it clearly feels like just . . . no one gave them any negative feedback on a draft?
and a lot of this, frankly, is related to worshiping Cishet White Male Genius, and letting people (by which i mean especially cishet white men) get away with being Petty Assholes in response to . . . absolute nothings because Auteur or w/e, and it just . . . it has to stop
like it's just such an absolutely destructive way to run a field. we can't go on like that. like no one has to *like* getting negative feedback, but "you made a valid critique of my play so now i'm ruining your career forever b/c i have Power" just can't be how we do things
ok, end of thread, pls do not die of plague or fire or anything else i love you stay safe <3
