talking critic with critics
There’s been a lot of talk about arts culture criticism. About its power and influence. About their knowledge. About the responsibility involved. But we hardly even think about the scarce resources and payment offered to the critics. Or about the clouse relationships between creators, producers, the media and critics in this limited reality of ours. Or whether critics’ work, too, is creative. Or about the model for the culture which the media set. Or... about some of these questions which we have asked five experts from the cultural world:
1/
What should today’s culture critics and media culture pages provide us with?
2/
In times when so much is produced, to what extent are critics always bound to new products? In these times of saturation, has the critics’ role become that of filtering things out?
3/
Blogs, social networks... anyone who wants to can now give his/her opinion and has the media to publish it on. How has the web affected critics’ work?
4/
In the Basque Country, in general, to what extent is the “sweetened” criticism which is done helpful to culture creativity? Iratxe Fresneda
audiovisual professor and cinema critic.
1/
If only I knew! (laughter) Perhaps they should shake things up. Tell us about new things
happening, look for things which aren't visible on the surface, ask society questions to create a
real dialogue and keep what we call the arts alive. When I say "alive", I mean making cinema,
literature and the others arts things that really make us stop in our steps. In that sense, the
institutional media's control of the arts is harmful, I think, and could even be killing the arts off.
2/
That's true, we're saturated. In some cases that's how I see myself, a sieve. At those moments
I decide to take things calmly, my my choices, sometimes instinctively (obviously, improvisation
is the result of many years of work), and I try to put together my own personal catalogue of
work coming out. But that's a very personal option, I don't know if that's useful in general.
3/
There is a lot of noise, and it's often an aberration. We create a lot of commotion on the
social networks, for example: I'm terrible on them. And sometimes I miss a bit of silence. It's
good and necessary to have spectators, listeners and readers with opinions and criteria, but
then there are the professionals, some of whom are mediocre and some of whom are more
interesting, but it's their job, and I always respect people's work.
4/
It's no help at all. Quite the opposite, I'd say. In fact, the idea of shaking things up is quite the
opposite of sweetening them. But our country's a small country and we all know each other
here, the atmosphere's "affected" and sometimes it's hard to breathe. You get calls and e-mails
very quickly, either directly or indirectly. That isn't good for independent criticism, it doesn't let
us be daring in our criticisms. Sometimes failures are necessary in order to turn things around,
to create movement, but we still have a long way to go before we understand that.
Arkaitz Villar
journalist and music critic.
1/
Arts pages should show us creativity and cultural work in the most attractive way possible. should use their criteria to evaluate or examine (criticise) that work.
2/
Critics have always been connected with new products. I think that's only to be expected. You evaluate what is produced now because it's the moment you're living in. And it has to be like that. However, work from other periods also has to be taken into account. That is connected with a didactic tendency, and it is very enriching to show where things have come from. It's hard to put up with the times of saturation we live in. I think that, if they were published today, many classics would just go unnoticed. That's why critics have to be able to detect references which will be remembered in the future.
3/
On the one hand, feedback is an advantage for critics: people can share their opinions. And it's good that those platforms give people the chance to express their opinions. But it is true that sometimes what's published amounts to very little. Sometimes it's all too noisy and reality
gets distorted.
4/
I don't think it does but, at the same time, we do need it. However, there are some references which must be defended more than others, and I think that's where we need to concentrate our efforts. In music, for instance, some groups do more interesting things than others. So I think that's what we should defend. There is a network in the Basque Country. Too small by the way. If you say you don't like somebody's work, our country's "intellectuals" jump at you. Of course, they've written lyrics for the records, or they're friends of the musicians, and want to show their friendship in that way. And then we all say there's no such thing as a real criticism... We don't tend to be self-critical here, and that's why negative criticisms are so badly received. Managers, record companies, concert halls, groups, the media... Nobody takes it well. And that's why we get those sweetened criticisms. I don't write about things I don't think are interesting: that's my choice and what I do rather than lay into groups and records.
Iban Zaldua
professor, writer and literature critic
1/
I don't think its role has changed much in comparison with other times: making some works better known, separating the grain from the chaff. Although the abundance of things nowadays (both of work and of critics) makes it more and more important to develop your own voice, distinguishing features, and become a point of reference for some readers. To do that, critics and media have to be coherent, they have to follow a line.
2/
Non-academic critics, people who write in newspapers, are the result of the capitalist market, to a large extent. In that context, there is a never-ending production of novelties, and, happily and unhappily, critics have to face those novelties all the time. There's no doubt that looking back and bringing back some works from the past is much to be appreciated (as A. Galarraga does in Argia), but I think that will probably always be an exception.
3/
On the one hand, and in a positive way, fossilized bases for criticism have been reawakened: you realise that some amateur critics aren't at all bad and people like J. Rojo, from his weekly pulpit in El Correo, start to look like the emperor in his new clothes, and that's good. On the other hand, the complete horizontal offering of opinions isn't so great either and the lack of hierarchy creates problems when it comes to making choices: for instance, sometimes the artists themselves write about their own work, in places like Amazon. That hasn't really reached Basque literature yet, but it will do, sooner or later.
4/
I don't think it's at all helpful. Perhaps at one time, when our arts were even less known than now and oppressed, some sort of protectionism was necessary, I'm not sure. But nowadays I'd even say it's harmful. Not everything can be all that good. Readers know as much as that and the result can be that they don't trust the critics any more.
Agus Perez
theatre critic.
1/
Critics have to offer spectators a contrast. They have to deconstruct and rebuild what has been seen by giving works the context they need, examining how they've been put together, and then evaluating it all together. In that process, the spectator gets more from what he/she has seen and becomes enriched not by the critic's possible wisdom but rather by the structure of the reflection about what has been seen.
2/
On the one hand, yes, and that requires careful reading. When you just go to a show once, you have to do a lot of work on that occasion: study the programme, calculate distances and timetables, see just how interesting it really is, take into account how appropriate or otherwise the place is, make contacts beforehand, get hold of information... But sometimes you write a criticism of the opening night and it's not actually going to reach the circuit until the following year..
3/
In connection with my previous answer, it gives readers the chance to read criticisms from the past, and it also makes it easier for critics to get hold of information. It's true that that information is available to everyone, but the critic has to choose it and then put it into a structure. But I'm not a big blog fan, because it takes a lot of work: feeding the blog, taking daily care of it... I also think that there's an added value to paper, you read things in a different way and take them in better too.
4/
It's hard to tell someone he/she's not done something very well, and it seems Basque theatre's never in very good health; but it's true that not diagnosing the illness or recommending medicine doesn't do anyone any favours. In recent years there have been marvellous works created in Basque and from Basque, and that makes things easier: there are now some works which can be held up as examples, and it's easier not to be judgemental or facile.
Leire San Martin
art critic and educator.
1/
When it comes to mainstream media, the combination of culture and visuals usually seems to come to the front and, in general, it becomes the critics' "object". However, we shouldn't overlook various other specialised media which examine culture with a critical eye and/or cover alternative artistic expression. Be that as may, my view is that pages about culture in the media should cover many different types of art and, that way, the readers can choose what they are interested in.
2/
I don't think there should always be criticisms about new products; sometimes little-known cultural manifestations from the past are brought to light again and they become as vital as anything contemporary, and that's important. It is true that there is a wide offer in today's cultural world, and criticisms do act as sieves, also for intermediaries who organize, produce and legitimise cultural manifestations. For instance, large art exhibitions, art markets and artists too, amongst others. Those intermediaries take part in the legitimisation of culture, and, to an extent, limit and reduce the offer before the public get to see it.
3/
I believe that has had a positive influence critics' work. Before the Internet age, critics had to go to official media in order to give their opinions and, in most cases, the media imposed narrow filters when they chose which critics to publish. Nowadays, anybody can create a platform to broadcast his/her opinion, and that leads to a plurality of opinions. You don't have to be a well-known critic to get your voice heard.
4/
Over-indulgent criticisms never help artistic creativity and, unfortunately, that is what we all too often find in mainstream media. I'd say that there is in-depth, specialised criticism in the Basque Country, although you don't come across it too often nowadays: but there are interesting, well-written texts in some newspapers and supplements. I think that's to be encouraged.
1/
What should today’s culture critics and media culture pages provide us with?
2/
In times when so much is produced, to what extent are critics always bound to new products? In these times of saturation, has the critics’ role become that of filtering things out?
3/
Blogs, social networks... anyone who wants to can now give his/her opinion and has the media to publish it on. How has the web affected critics’ work?
4/
In the Basque Country, in general, to what extent is the “sweetened” criticism which is done helpful to culture creativity? Iratxe Fresneda
audiovisual professor and cinema critic.
1/
If only I knew! (laughter) Perhaps they should shake things up. Tell us about new things
happening, look for things which aren't visible on the surface, ask society questions to create a
real dialogue and keep what we call the arts alive. When I say "alive", I mean making cinema,
literature and the others arts things that really make us stop in our steps. In that sense, the
institutional media's control of the arts is harmful, I think, and could even be killing the arts off.
2/
That's true, we're saturated. In some cases that's how I see myself, a sieve. At those moments
I decide to take things calmly, my my choices, sometimes instinctively (obviously, improvisation
is the result of many years of work), and I try to put together my own personal catalogue of
work coming out. But that's a very personal option, I don't know if that's useful in general.
3/
There is a lot of noise, and it's often an aberration. We create a lot of commotion on the
social networks, for example: I'm terrible on them. And sometimes I miss a bit of silence. It's
good and necessary to have spectators, listeners and readers with opinions and criteria, but
then there are the professionals, some of whom are mediocre and some of whom are more
interesting, but it's their job, and I always respect people's work.
4/
It's no help at all. Quite the opposite, I'd say. In fact, the idea of shaking things up is quite the
opposite of sweetening them. But our country's a small country and we all know each other
here, the atmosphere's "affected" and sometimes it's hard to breathe. You get calls and e-mails
very quickly, either directly or indirectly. That isn't good for independent criticism, it doesn't let
us be daring in our criticisms. Sometimes failures are necessary in order to turn things around,
to create movement, but we still have a long way to go before we understand that.
Arkaitz Villar
journalist and music critic.
1/
Arts pages should show us creativity and cultural work in the most attractive way possible. should use their criteria to evaluate or examine (criticise) that work.
2/
Critics have always been connected with new products. I think that's only to be expected. You evaluate what is produced now because it's the moment you're living in. And it has to be like that. However, work from other periods also has to be taken into account. That is connected with a didactic tendency, and it is very enriching to show where things have come from. It's hard to put up with the times of saturation we live in. I think that, if they were published today, many classics would just go unnoticed. That's why critics have to be able to detect references which will be remembered in the future.
3/
On the one hand, feedback is an advantage for critics: people can share their opinions. And it's good that those platforms give people the chance to express their opinions. But it is true that sometimes what's published amounts to very little. Sometimes it's all too noisy and reality
gets distorted.
4/
I don't think it does but, at the same time, we do need it. However, there are some references which must be defended more than others, and I think that's where we need to concentrate our efforts. In music, for instance, some groups do more interesting things than others. So I think that's what we should defend. There is a network in the Basque Country. Too small by the way. If you say you don't like somebody's work, our country's "intellectuals" jump at you. Of course, they've written lyrics for the records, or they're friends of the musicians, and want to show their friendship in that way. And then we all say there's no such thing as a real criticism... We don't tend to be self-critical here, and that's why negative criticisms are so badly received. Managers, record companies, concert halls, groups, the media... Nobody takes it well. And that's why we get those sweetened criticisms. I don't write about things I don't think are interesting: that's my choice and what I do rather than lay into groups and records.
Iban Zaldua
professor, writer and literature critic
1/
I don't think its role has changed much in comparison with other times: making some works better known, separating the grain from the chaff. Although the abundance of things nowadays (both of work and of critics) makes it more and more important to develop your own voice, distinguishing features, and become a point of reference for some readers. To do that, critics and media have to be coherent, they have to follow a line.
2/
Non-academic critics, people who write in newspapers, are the result of the capitalist market, to a large extent. In that context, there is a never-ending production of novelties, and, happily and unhappily, critics have to face those novelties all the time. There's no doubt that looking back and bringing back some works from the past is much to be appreciated (as A. Galarraga does in Argia), but I think that will probably always be an exception.
3/
On the one hand, and in a positive way, fossilized bases for criticism have been reawakened: you realise that some amateur critics aren't at all bad and people like J. Rojo, from his weekly pulpit in El Correo, start to look like the emperor in his new clothes, and that's good. On the other hand, the complete horizontal offering of opinions isn't so great either and the lack of hierarchy creates problems when it comes to making choices: for instance, sometimes the artists themselves write about their own work, in places like Amazon. That hasn't really reached Basque literature yet, but it will do, sooner or later.
4/
I don't think it's at all helpful. Perhaps at one time, when our arts were even less known than now and oppressed, some sort of protectionism was necessary, I'm not sure. But nowadays I'd even say it's harmful. Not everything can be all that good. Readers know as much as that and the result can be that they don't trust the critics any more.
Agus Perez
theatre critic.
1/
Critics have to offer spectators a contrast. They have to deconstruct and rebuild what has been seen by giving works the context they need, examining how they've been put together, and then evaluating it all together. In that process, the spectator gets more from what he/she has seen and becomes enriched not by the critic's possible wisdom but rather by the structure of the reflection about what has been seen.
2/
On the one hand, yes, and that requires careful reading. When you just go to a show once, you have to do a lot of work on that occasion: study the programme, calculate distances and timetables, see just how interesting it really is, take into account how appropriate or otherwise the place is, make contacts beforehand, get hold of information... But sometimes you write a criticism of the opening night and it's not actually going to reach the circuit until the following year..
3/
In connection with my previous answer, it gives readers the chance to read criticisms from the past, and it also makes it easier for critics to get hold of information. It's true that that information is available to everyone, but the critic has to choose it and then put it into a structure. But I'm not a big blog fan, because it takes a lot of work: feeding the blog, taking daily care of it... I also think that there's an added value to paper, you read things in a different way and take them in better too.
4/
It's hard to tell someone he/she's not done something very well, and it seems Basque theatre's never in very good health; but it's true that not diagnosing the illness or recommending medicine doesn't do anyone any favours. In recent years there have been marvellous works created in Basque and from Basque, and that makes things easier: there are now some works which can be held up as examples, and it's easier not to be judgemental or facile.
Leire San Martin
art critic and educator.
1/
When it comes to mainstream media, the combination of culture and visuals usually seems to come to the front and, in general, it becomes the critics' "object". However, we shouldn't overlook various other specialised media which examine culture with a critical eye and/or cover alternative artistic expression. Be that as may, my view is that pages about culture in the media should cover many different types of art and, that way, the readers can choose what they are interested in.
2/
I don't think there should always be criticisms about new products; sometimes little-known cultural manifestations from the past are brought to light again and they become as vital as anything contemporary, and that's important. It is true that there is a wide offer in today's cultural world, and criticisms do act as sieves, also for intermediaries who organize, produce and legitimise cultural manifestations. For instance, large art exhibitions, art markets and artists too, amongst others. Those intermediaries take part in the legitimisation of culture, and, to an extent, limit and reduce the offer before the public get to see it.
3/
I believe that has had a positive influence critics' work. Before the Internet age, critics had to go to official media in order to give their opinions and, in most cases, the media imposed narrow filters when they chose which critics to publish. Nowadays, anybody can create a platform to broadcast his/her opinion, and that leads to a plurality of opinions. You don't have to be a well-known critic to get your voice heard.
4/
Over-indulgent criticisms never help artistic creativity and, unfortunately, that is what we all too often find in mainstream media. I'd say that there is in-depth, specialised criticism in the Basque Country, although you don't come across it too often nowadays: but there are interesting, well-written texts in some newspapers and supplements. I think that's to be encouraged.
