September 5, 2006

Rethinking Art Reviews and New Marketing Approaches

I'm back from a month of no blogging. Hope everybody enjoyed the summer.

I don't think that there is any question that the traditional role of art critic is changing - often disappearing. Large-circulation publications (print and web) are running fewer music, theater and dance reviews. Just to reinforce this point, in the September 1st issue of the New York Times a story ran with the following title: "Village Voice Dismisses 8, Including Senior Arts Editors" -- clearly self-explanatory.

While the number of art reviews has been cut, artists and the arts community at-large seem more intent then ever to ensure that the reviews that are run serve their marketing and creative objectives.

Here's an intriguing story that erupted because artists, in this case playwrights, didn't like how their works in progress were reviewed. After I provide some background and links for this story, I'll offer my thoughts about why this battle over how a theater critic should or should not go about writing a review is misguided.

To the story:

The Stages 2006 Marathon, a showcase of new musicals that are in the development stage, took place August 11-13th at the Theatre Building Chicago, an "incubator for emerging theatre companies." On August 16th, Chicago Sun-Times theater critic Hedy Weiss wrote a review, "Stages' Eight Musicals Show Serious Flaws." An uproar followed.

The main criticism directed at Hedy Weiss is that she should not have written the review of works that were clearly in progress. (Read about story in New York Times and Orlando Sentinel.)

It's also worth reading the letters to the editor that were run after Weiss' August 16th review. Weiss offers her response to the criticism at the bottom of this page of reader letters. After reading the letters and Weiss' response I lean toward supporting Weiss' side of the story.

But the story gets even more heated. John Weidman, president of the Dramatists Guild of America, adds his voice in a letter to the editor that is harshly critical of Weiss' review. Plus 22 members of the Guild wrote letters as well expressing their dismay.

A Few Thoughts:

1) The amount of energy generated by this issue is excessive and unwarranted.

2) Artists and the arts community put too much weight in the marketing value of reviews in publications that run after the fact - after the curtain has already come down.

3) Many people within the arts community are making too many unexamined assumptions about how art goers make decisions about attending performances. And,

4) It would be immensely helpful for some artists (those who are inclined) to explore new avenues for exposing their works in progress to the general public in order to receive constructive criticism during these early or middle stages of the creative process. And this effort of sharing the creative process - even with all the potential downsides - will help build a loyal audience as well.

This post is getting a little longer than I intended. I'll elaborate on these four points in my next post - probably by tomorrow morning.

Trackback Pings