Australian Theatre Forum: A terrifyingly amicable discussion between artists and critics
by Jane
Open Spaces thoughts: two.
“Terrifyingly frank discussion between arts and critics”, is what was proposed by Cameron Woodhead, and “Given the ABC has just dropped its in house arts coverage, how do we nourish and sustain critical connections?” was instigated by Alison Croggon. I was very excited by the size of the group which choose to attend the discussions. I was disappointed together, everyone was much more “terrifyingly amicable” than “terrifyingly frank.”
There are so many issues surrounding both prongs of this debate. For me and my “career” as a critic it boils down to two key issues: how do I receive critical feedback of my work as an emerging writer, and how do I create a sustainable career in a field which is rapidly being removed from our traditional media sources? I am paid for only two of the publications I write for – and this sum is minimal. I figure in a good month I might be able to bring in as much as $220.
I have not yet had one of these months which I would describe as good.
(And then, of course, I buy tickets for a great chunk of the shows I review for this blog, so that’s where that money goes. I am often struck how often I am praised for my work on this blog, and how few media lists I am on.)
This career is currently completely unsustainable, this blog is completely unsustainable. It’s not necessarily that not getting paid is the issue, it’s that I’m not paid and I work full time and then and then and then. It can all get a bit much.
And on the other point, it is really really hard to get artists to talk to critics about criticism. I’ve been having more luck in Adelaide in recent months, perhaps my “contribution” to the arts scene there more visibly seen or appreciated? My annoying voice popping up in more forums, people figuring out I’m not going away?
There might be a terrible perception that you can’t talk to a critic without that having repercussions on their response to your work. I hate the fact that I too believe there are writers out there for whom that might be true: you don’t like me? Well, I don’t like you either.
But when a critic instigates the discussion, asks for it at a forum of arts makers, couldn’t we stop playing nice for those twenty minutes? The biggest point of “dissent” was everyone agreeing they don’t like star ratings, but the four writers in the room also agreed! I don’t agree with the idea pitched that we should then just give everyone five stars, however, I’m going to work within the system I’m required to. (I only have to do stars for ArtsHub, and I don’t republish that rating here, if you’re wondering.)
Some thoughts put out onto the floor:
The internet’s put out al sorts of new places for debate, but we still have problems surrounding encouraging this discourse. It’s only going to get worse with papers cutting coverage. Can the whole sector think of it differently?
Trying to say “we should find funding for this” is hard, but it’s important in creating those pathways.
In print media they don’t privilege the idea of getting the right people assigned to the work: during the Adelaide Fringe, business editors review shows. If you’re stuck with the Advertiser or the West Australian, criticism doesn’t come into it. Does the tiny amount of coverage mean anything? What are these places supposed to do?
The blogesphere means we are more likely to be searching out particular voices than particular publications.
How do we get funding? Could PlayWriting Australia take it on? (This is a question of particular interest to me now, as I’ve just been told I am ineligible to apply for a JUMP Mentorship.)
[Griffin Theatre] invited a journalist in Sydney to a tech run: did it compromise his ability? Or does it make him more inclined to understand the work?
How do we encourage this dialogue before productions?
Why can we not turn blog hits into a business? (On the weekend at Brisbane Writers’ Festival I attended a talk called The Digital Revolution: Who Pays? about how we do create sustainable writing and publication spaces online. Minimal amounts of money are brought in by advertising, to actually have any money, it seems, you need to exist on a membership or subscription model [with or without a paywall]. I don’t know how this can exist for people like myself who run a self-directed site where I am the only writer. And, also, I don’t want to have advertising on this site: it’s not about that.)
We want to unlock a national dialogue about form.
Good criticism is a review that, when you read it, even if it says it hated the show, you still want to see it. The most interesting part isn’t if they liked or hated it, it’s why.
The quality of criticism on theatre for young audiences is lacking: it either tells the story or just say “an eleven year old liked it.”
No Plain Jane 
This is a really interesting post for artist/reviewers. It’s an uncomfortable space to have a foot in both camps and makes for some ethical dilemmas. Am I reviewing this show positively because I’m trying to impress x as he/she is reading my play at the moment, or is my enthusiasm genuine? And, even if it is genuine, will other people think it’s crawling?
And the reverse: I’m lambasting this show but what will it do to my chances of ever working for that company?
Many theatre reviewers are also theatre makers because we are a small community of passionate people. Most of us have acted/directed/written/designed for the stage as well as reviewing other people’s shows. If we are still wanting to work in this space does reviewing compromise our chances? And if we stop reviewing will the people who take up the pen/keyboard have our understanding of the craft and skill of theatre practice?
Sadly, there are reviewers around who seem to hate theatre. I can’t begin to understand why they would choose to write about an artform they despise, but perhaps they are staff writers and the papers they write for are cutting costs. There are also staff writer/reviewers who discuss a show in terms of the frocks on stage rather than the art and craft of the piece.
I recently stopped reviewing after a decade of paid work in the field. It was hard to give it up and I will mourn the loss of tickets, but I want to be taken seriously as an artist and reviewing clouded the issue for too many people (including me).
Thank you so much for blogging the conference for those of us who weren’t able to attend.
I would like to see it become a point where critical feedback is so encouraged that it is again the norm that professional artists are critics, or at the very least there is more room for open dialogue. Still leaving room for us non-artists, and creating a space where we can be part of the discussion and supported so we grow in our craft.
In some ways, those questions you pose are ones I consider just as a member of the arts community in a small city. The best turning point I had as a writer was when I decided I had to stop – for lack of a better phrase – worrying if anyone hated me. I was going to be honest, because otherwise I would break myself. Has this jeopardised my ability to work in a theatre company (which was my goal when I started working in this industry)? I certainly don’t see a job in the performing arts being a reality in any near future (irrelevant perhaps, as I’m not looking for a new job). I also wonder when I’m openly critical of other arts writers, how does that affect my chances of paid work in this profession, in this city?
I agree and am also puzzled by some writers. There are many critics (particularly in Adelaide) I am disappointed with the quality of their work, which is why I think we need a more open dialogue. I don’t know what the answers are though.
Thanks for following along my crazy conference journey.
I run a website (http://www.briscreativeindustries.com) where the peak of the website was hiring temporary freelance writers to attend events (with a focus on professional development events such as forums and conference) and write about it. I’ve kept ties with my writers – many of them comms professionals so they’re working at some sort of marketing/comms/copywriting type of positions but also a few pursuing their arts careers (ie one of them currently in Berlin to pursue her vis arts career!) so it was a good mix. I don’t ‘do’ what other people call reviews or even criticism, but rather use social media (through tweets, updates, blog entries, photos etc) to communicate a geography and time restricted event (like a Brisbane forum) to a wider audience. I think that there is still room for such writers, they just need to ‘rebrand’ themselves? I think that there is too much baggage’ in the word ‘critic’ and instead should see ourselves more as ‘communicators’ – we communicate in so many different ways now, my only or first exposure to a show may be via a photo uploaded on Facebook or a 140 character tweet…
—-
“The internet’s put out al sorts of new places for debate, but we still have problems surrounding encouraging this discourse. It’s only going to get worse with papers cutting coverage. Can the whole sector think of it differently?”
I think the main issue here is time – ie after a debate, people tend to want to move on to other projects that would take up their time/energy. I think a way to make this into a discourse that people would want to engage in ‘after’ is to find a way to make such a discourse ‘sticky’ – for example, if ATF held weekly Facebook discussions around a certain topic, or fortnightly Twitter discussions around a certain hashtag. In other words, turning a huge three day forum into bite-size chunks. But engagement is still engagement and it’s better than no engagement..
—–
[Griffin Theatre] invited a journalist in Sydney to a tech run: did it compromise his ability? Or does it make him more inclined to understand the work?
I think that inviting journos to tech runs is actually a good thing. If you can harness them for half an hour or an hour just on the show, even if it’s a tech run, it’s a good thing.