Viewport width =
March 22, 2004 | by  | in News |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

Art for who’s sake?

Clive James wizzed in and out of the country earlier this month, and since he was lauded by Salient (and the Listener) as being “one of the greatest critics ever,” it’s probably worth looking behind the scenes of the art pages. Everyone’s a critic, but only reviewers get to broadcast their opinions beyond earshot.

John Ralston Saul has a fair idea about what defines a good critic. They are “delightful people. Perceptive. Fair. Disinterested. Even-handed. Charming.”

Bad critics, on the other hand, “are drunks, don’t drink but should, didn’t have time to read the book or, worst of all, review for money. Reviewing is paid less than Third World factory labour and any reliance on it for income may unbalance the mind.”

There is no cash-money to be made from reviewing in these pages and this means Saul would either see student arts reviewers as either uncorrupted and sane or, more likely, completely off their rocker.

While there’s no money, there is a treasure trove of contra – aka ‘free stuff’. This is one of the main reasons people wander into an editor’s office and volunteer their time. Want to write for the music pages? Your name’s on the door. Films? Free tickets to the premier. Books? Cut up your library card. (Incidentally this explains why so few people volunteer to write news – who wants free access to a public meeting? But more on this in another column.)

With all this free stuff comes a certain moral quandary: what happens if you diss your subject? The contra can dry up, and a critics’ ability to review is effectively squashed. Observing the mainstream media, you should note a predominance of positive reviews. This is not just because of the sick symbiotic relationship between artist and critic, but more to do with what an ideal review should achieve.
Reviews that are mostly negative are either due to a hideous piece of art that’s injurious to the public good, or a critic who uncritically projects gut feeling – a projection of personal biases and preferences. (It’s also worth noting that it’s easier to write a damning review than an effusive one.)

The best reviews will give insight to a reader who is already a fan, as well as providing some education to someone who is not. The very best reviews are enjoyed equally by die-hard fans and abject detractors.

The problems with reviewing are best illustrated in the music pages. You may notice certain genres of music receive far more coverage than others. It’s usually ooonst over brrrzzzt (electronic over rock), or vice versa. The best tonic for this ailment if you feel your preferred crowd is being slighted? Volunteer your time. If you know the scene, its history and recent developments, you’ve got the potential to be a good critic. Just keep off the drink until after you’ve filed.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Comments are closed.

Recent posts

  1. Basin Reserve Vigil: Wellington Stands with Mosque Attack Victims
  2. Mosque Terror Attacks: The Government Responds
  3. Issue 04 ~ Peace
  4. Law School Apparently Not Good at Following Rules
  5. Wellington Central Library closed indefinitely
  6. School Climate Strike Draws Thousands
  7. VUW to Begin Kelburn Liquor Ban Consultation
  8. Issue 03 – Nō hea koe?
  9. Ka Tangi Te Tītī, Ka Tangi Te Kākā, Ka Tangi Hoki Ahau, Tīhei Maui Ora
  10. I Lift My Eyes
Horse Betting-01

Editor's Pick

The Messara Report on New Zealand Horse Racing

: My mum’s family loves a “flutter”.   A “flutter” is Kiwi slang for betting. Usually on horse racing, but we’re also partial to the odd greyhound meet or two. In April 2018, the Minister for Racing, Winston Peters, released the Messara report, calling for the clos