Seven Reasons why a Theater Blogger is more than just a Blogger with an opinion

Below is my response to something that I recently came across in the local ecosystem, something arguing for the interpretive primacy of the classical theater critic. The implicit idea in this being that bloggers are not qualified to be theater critics, and that their work is littered with opinions that are unsubstantiated. Though the content is generally insightful there were some strong reservations that I had with a few of its arguments.

I have broken down the claims (not always explicitly stated but implied) of the content and my response to these claims.

1) Implied claim - The traditional theater critic (as opposed to a blogger) is well established, by virtue of authority and experience, to definitively comment on the pedigree of a production.

Response - Many bloggers lie on the fringes of the institutional spaces that structurally generate artistic productions and perceptions. There is nothing inherently wrong with these institutional spaces; they perform very important functions, but there is something wrong in expecting artistic perception to remain constricted within that locus. The production of human meaning, and by association artistic perception, is non-linear and lateral; it cannot always be expected to aggregate towards sites that are institutionally defined. I wholeheartedly embrace the radical production of human meaning, whether it comes from a newspaper, from an esteemed and institutionally recognized critic, or an audience member.

The theatre is a democratic medium; it is a vital function of our civic freedom. We may need to start moving away from the assumption that individuals ensconced within the ecosystem are necessarily the best interpreters of what we see on stage. I would argue there are no best interpreters. There is no hierarchy of critical guardianship here. Bloggers and critics are cultural witnesses, speaking through time to say that something powerful was once staged. Critics and bloggers are both social archivists, saying not only that 'we were here', but more poignantly 'we saw something'. Seen through this lens, their functional positions towards each other are complementary, and not antagonistic.

2) Implied claim - The default response of the theater ecosystem should be to to trust the judgement of the theater critic over the blogger.

Response - Mainstream critics are acknowledged to perform important functions, but like any other function, it is a limited one. The blogger also works within certain limits; they, too, are captive to their platform's limitations. The question then becomes, how do we enrich the interpretive horizon of the artistic ecology while working within our respective functions? Simply, the work of both should not be seen as mutually exclusive; rather, they are different dimensions of meaning-making that, when held in a state of co-existence, enrich the shared enterprise of theater. Neither the blogger nor the mainstream critic has any monopoly on the truth.

A serious critic understands that the T in truth cannot always be capitalized; there are truths and not Truths. These truths are situational, conditional, emergent and exist in radically contingent states, but that does not mean that the blogger cannot use their voice to issue their observations of the state of things. The blogger will also, in some cases, issue prescriptions, now this will seem anathema through the traditional model of reviewing, but what is more acceptable to a reader with a stake in the review? Someone who says something was wrong because something was wrong, which of course is not a reason, but is a tautology, or someone who says something is wrong because of 'X, Y, Z, etc'. The latter may generate more ire, but at least you know where you stand with them.

3) Implied claim - The traditional theater critic understands what the traditional rules of criticism are, they remain steadfast to these rules and the writing should remain aloof and distant. This protects a reviewer against the impulse to adopt an omniscient posture when reviewing a play.

Response - The blogger may adopt a vociferous and even polemical posture when discussing a production, but even the most hard-headed polemicist knows that they are not omniscient, but they are passionate. Passion without reason becomes an exercise in insufferable pathos, but reason without emotion becomes haughty and conceited, full of nauseating ‘Gotcha’! moments. The long form template of the blogger allows for the reference of texts, ideas and sensory impressions that may not be possible in the short form template of the mainstream critic.

Does that make it a better platform? Not at all, but what it does do is give readers a bouquet of choices in determining where it is they will extract meaning from. It also allows the blogger to use his/her writing to engage in self-reflection and examination. I can think of no higher compliment or dignity conferred to a production when it has made a blogger walk out of the theatre wanting to actively understand what it is he/she has witnessed, and wanting to do it outside of the bounds of a 150–300-word short form (mainstream) template. The blogger does not only see these productions as products; at some level, they will, and that is important, to understand the financial and logistical limitations that any theatre company must contend with, but it is also to see whether the production will culturally endure. For the blogger, it is an anthropological exercise, excavating through the interpretive layers (historical, ideological, social) that frame these productions. This is not necessarily omniscience, this is inter-disciplinary ambition.

4) Implied claim - Bloggers, by virtue of their lack of experience, do not recognize that their perspectives will always remain myopic and partial. The traditional critic is inoculated against this. 

Response - Do bloggers recognize that they could be wrong? Sure, but should that obstruct them from taking interpretive risks and projecting their voice out into their environment? Absolutely not, assume the risk and make the mistake, and self-correct if need be. It would be bizarre for a blogger to exhort performers and artists to take risks if they themselves had a poor risk appetite when it comes to scanning the interpretive horizon. We can recognize our bounded rationality, but we can also keep restlessly searching and mining for ideas that speak to the complexity of the human experience. It is also worth questioning whether the theater critic is in fact inoculated against myopia? It is a very large claim, and there is very little evidence to substantiate this.

5) Implied claim - Traditional theater critics are able to, relatively, separate their worldviews from their aesthetic observations.

Response - Sometimes, the analogy of the doctor is used to illustrate the detached neutrality through which a critic interprets a production. This is, I would argue, not the right analogy because a doctor, like all doctors, will have a worldview and the diagnostic observations and prognostic prescriptions that they make and issue will, to a large part, be extensions of that worldview. Some will exhort patients to use medication, and some will try to exhort patients to redesign their lifestyles. If the post-enlightenment era has shown us anything, it is that the dispensation of scientific advice is never neutral; it is mediated through human agency, and that agency is the site of meaning-making and the active construction of ethical and communal choices. This blog, for example, has a worldview, this must always be admitted and acknowledged because these worldviews will always find a way to express themselves in the review. What can be done though, is to maintain negative capability, the capacity to remain with uncertainty, inconsistency and ambiguity.

This can be a very potent form of self discipline by the blogger, the idea being, there are too many ideas here for a blogger to be able to state with certainty that any one of them is the right one. Some may feel truer than others, but a blogger must take the risk and assume that some of them are right, otherwise how would the attempt to write an enduring review ever be initiated? This is the key function of a blogger who writes in long form, they are not necessarily looking to replicate the copy or style of a mainstream review. To argue that this necessarily disqualifies it from being a serious review would be to negate the intellectual history of people like Susan Sontag who used many tools and frameworks to interpret the role of theater.

I would argue that we need to expand our horizons around what constitutes a review instead of remaining tethered to a monolithic conception of reviewing (one-size-fits-all model) that is quite frankly rooted to a past that has long since left us. The idea that mainstream critics do not filter their impressions, and subsequently their reviews, through a distinct worldview is a deeply mistaken assumption. What we can say is that the good ones (critics and bloggers) will always be able to work with negative capability and the idea that the critical methodology around artistic interpretation is always on the move.

6) Implied Claim - There is a deficit in reasoning in the reviews that are issued by bloggers, and this results in interpretive products that do not conform to the classical conception of what a theater review is.

Response - I do agree with the assertion that an anything goes perspective should not be adopted by a blogger, artists and creative teams put a lot of work into their productions, they deserve an extensive review. Which is why the ethic on this blog has been to ensure that copious amounts of creative analyses and references are made. This is something that will always continue on this blog. It is incorrect to assume that the 150-300-word analysis by mainstream critics is in any way a fulsome review; it is not. It is very odd to argue that bloggers have opinions whereas mainstream theater critics have reasons when, most respectfully, the same expectations of criticism are not applied to their modes of reviewing. 150 words does not a review make, it is a summary judgement, and does not establish what the standards should be for the rest of the reviewing community.

Yes, mainstream platforms do not allow for volume, but a blog (texts, audio, video, etc.) does, and if they are passionate about maintaining consistency with the claim that the opinions of mainstream theatre critics are more than just opinions, then they may need to start showing the ecosystem what a reasonably defensible opinion is outside of their current review format. This would be leading from the front and, more importantly, leading by example. Personally, I think it would help build a constructive pedagogical culture and institutionalize the knowledge of experienced critics.

7) Implied claim - Bloggers are critical for the sake of being critical.

Response - Bloggers do not necessarily weaponize criticism for the sake of criticism, it is a function of feeling something about something. Criticism is the bridge between emotion and reason. Bad criticism is, 'this was terrible' full stop. Stronger criticism is an exposition on why the characters failed, why the representations on stage were stilted and doing this by integrating the play's themes into the production choices.

An exposition of these observations is not always visible in mainstream reviewing. The potential problem with this is that anyone with a stake in the review is left without a clear sense of the technical basis for a critic's opinion. It is out of this space that the blogger emerges, not to be critical for the sake of being critical, but to heighten our standards around what critical discourse encompasses and entails.