A recent incident with Rickie Lee Jones has spurred me to consider the critic's craft, both from the giving and receiving end. As someone who has experienced both, here are my guidelines for dealing with criticism.
A wise set of guidelines. I'd also add that, having worked in artistic projects that required lengthy and complex collaborations, I've learned that it's often the case that no one involved really, fully understands the ultimate impact of everything in the work. That's why theaters hold previews. That joke doesn't really land. People aren't following a major plot point that we thought we'd already over-explained.
And that's one of the great functions of a critic -- that perspective (one hopes it's a knowledgeable one) from outside our little creative bubble. I know/hope many artists understand that. I've received happy reviews but realized the critic really didn't understand what we were up to and a negative one that indicated the critic really DID understand much of our effort, he just didn't agree with it.
Concerning your remarks about socializing with the artists you write about, as a professional critic I've long cited an anecdote by the late great Texas wit and political journalist Molly Ivins. She told the story of a new, young legislator in the Texas State House seeking guidance from his older mentor. The problem the young man had was dealing with lobbyists. They're all so agreeable and friendly, they offer him dinners and drinks and even more to sway his vote, even to corrupt him in happy, rewarding ways (this IS the Texas State House). But how, the young man wanted to know, should he treat them when he already knew he wasn't going to support whatever policy or bill they were pushing?
The older legislator said, son, if you can't drink their liquor, enjoy their hospitality, take their money and still vote against them, you don't belong here.
My point is that a degree of socializing with artists is often an inevitable byproduct of a critic's job. It can be a matter of friendly or wary mutual respect. I've been yelled at in public on social occasions. Not that I didn't care; I simply took it as part of the job -- particularly when, as I was at the time, the lead theater critic in town. My reviews actually could affect the box office, not simply an artist's self-esteem. So I've tended to cut artists a LOT of slack when they've attacked me -- in print, online or in public. They've invested far more effort and time and heart into what they've done than what I've done with my review.
But that investment is precisely what often makes them not the best judge of the results.
A folllowup to what I just wrote about sports criticism. Ted, the other substack subscription that I have is to David Warsh's ECONOMIC PRINCIPALS, which is about exactly what that name suggest: economic and financial issues. But Warsh has several other issues also. This is from a recent column of his:
"Because it was August, I was reading Tall Men, Short Shorts, the 1969 NBA Finals: Wilt. Russ. Lakers. Celts, and a Very Young Sports Reporter (Doubleday, 2021). Leigh Montville was one of the many excellent sports columnist at The Boston Globe in the twenty years that I was there, somebody whom I always read no matter who or what he was writing about. After he was unreasonably refused an exit as columnist from the ghetto of sports, he left the paper for Sports Illustrated where he wrote extended features and the back of the magazine column for many years. He wrote eight books along the way. Tall Men, Short Pants is his ninth, a summing-up of much he learned about life in a fifty-year career as a journalist. "
Financial remuneration for criticism in most fields has suffered greatly in recent decades. Perhaps the major exception is for sports criticism, and here I would include sports journalism in the major newspapers. One example is the recently retired Tom Boswell of the Washington Post. It really is criticism, as it analyzes what is good and why it is good, putting it in proper perspective. I guess it has been maintained, because sports just gets ever bigger in our society, so that even as newspapers have been clobbered and sports reporting on television is 24/7 shouting heads, there remains good reason for newspapers to pay good money for this kind of criticism.
Ted, this is such an excellent essay that I had to share it in several places!
My favorite quote:
"If you shoot hoops at the gym, no one cares, but if you play in the NBA Finals, a million people criticize your every move. And it’s just as true in everyday work environments—the more responsibility you take on, the more you will be scrutinized and found wanting. So at least comfort yourself with the realization that tough and even unwarranted criticism is typically a sign that you’ve made some genuine progress." -- Ted Gioia
"A man who fears ridicule will never go far, for good or ill: he remains on this side of his talents, and even if he has genius, he is doomed to mediocrity."
That line from Cioran sticks with me, and while I don't agree that one should read all criticism - particularly online - the rest resonates. Thank you.
I love the perspective of criticism from someone who both gives and receives it. I enjoyed reading this and mentioned before on an other post that what draws me to critical writing is that it’s a tool for learning that helps give better understanding into art we love in a deeper way.
I think the challenging truth is that criticism in its best form allows to grow and expand and draw from other perspectives to improve. But one thing I notice now in my forties is that you have to have a strong sense of self to be able to deal with it.
An enfant terrible boss lives rent free in our minds when we lack the self confidence to know they are full of it. Not to mention that often people try to push down others to lift themselves up, as well as all the perverse incentives that you mention (hot take click bait) whose destructive hatefulness with anonymity dehumanizes and cuts down rather than build up.
As someone whose had the type of success writing critical books I’d love to hear who inspired you or what you believe makes the best type of criticism.
As a fellow critic, I can relate. My big issue is how critical can you be? I feel like the bias, for various reasons, is towards positivity. Personally, I'm always looking for the interesting parts of the music, not so much whether I "like" it or not. I don't think it really matters if I like it or not, as along as the music stands on its own feet on its own terms.
Bravo; well said.
A wise set of guidelines. I'd also add that, having worked in artistic projects that required lengthy and complex collaborations, I've learned that it's often the case that no one involved really, fully understands the ultimate impact of everything in the work. That's why theaters hold previews. That joke doesn't really land. People aren't following a major plot point that we thought we'd already over-explained.
And that's one of the great functions of a critic -- that perspective (one hopes it's a knowledgeable one) from outside our little creative bubble. I know/hope many artists understand that. I've received happy reviews but realized the critic really didn't understand what we were up to and a negative one that indicated the critic really DID understand much of our effort, he just didn't agree with it.
Concerning your remarks about socializing with the artists you write about, as a professional critic I've long cited an anecdote by the late great Texas wit and political journalist Molly Ivins. She told the story of a new, young legislator in the Texas State House seeking guidance from his older mentor. The problem the young man had was dealing with lobbyists. They're all so agreeable and friendly, they offer him dinners and drinks and even more to sway his vote, even to corrupt him in happy, rewarding ways (this IS the Texas State House). But how, the young man wanted to know, should he treat them when he already knew he wasn't going to support whatever policy or bill they were pushing?
The older legislator said, son, if you can't drink their liquor, enjoy their hospitality, take their money and still vote against them, you don't belong here.
My point is that a degree of socializing with artists is often an inevitable byproduct of a critic's job. It can be a matter of friendly or wary mutual respect. I've been yelled at in public on social occasions. Not that I didn't care; I simply took it as part of the job -- particularly when, as I was at the time, the lead theater critic in town. My reviews actually could affect the box office, not simply an artist's self-esteem. So I've tended to cut artists a LOT of slack when they've attacked me -- in print, online or in public. They've invested far more effort and time and heart into what they've done than what I've done with my review.
But that investment is precisely what often makes them not the best judge of the results.
Great essay, Ted. I will reread it with profit another time. Vive e la musica è la critica!
Thanks for this. I think it applies to all artists. If you’re saying something new, different it often confuses, upsets, even worries some people. 🙌🏼
11. Be seventy years old.
Very illuminating read Ted, #4 especially.
And it was Carolyn Zeytoonian's quote that mentioned the "NBA Finals" that made me recall Montville's book that was recommended by David Warsh.
A folllowup to what I just wrote about sports criticism. Ted, the other substack subscription that I have is to David Warsh's ECONOMIC PRINCIPALS, which is about exactly what that name suggest: economic and financial issues. But Warsh has several other issues also. This is from a recent column of his:
"Because it was August, I was reading Tall Men, Short Shorts, the 1969 NBA Finals: Wilt. Russ. Lakers. Celts, and a Very Young Sports Reporter (Doubleday, 2021). Leigh Montville was one of the many excellent sports columnist at The Boston Globe in the twenty years that I was there, somebody whom I always read no matter who or what he was writing about. After he was unreasonably refused an exit as columnist from the ghetto of sports, he left the paper for Sports Illustrated where he wrote extended features and the back of the magazine column for many years. He wrote eight books along the way. Tall Men, Short Pants is his ninth, a summing-up of much he learned about life in a fifty-year career as a journalist. "
Financial remuneration for criticism in most fields has suffered greatly in recent decades. Perhaps the major exception is for sports criticism, and here I would include sports journalism in the major newspapers. One example is the recently retired Tom Boswell of the Washington Post. It really is criticism, as it analyzes what is good and why it is good, putting it in proper perspective. I guess it has been maintained, because sports just gets ever bigger in our society, so that even as newspapers have been clobbered and sports reporting on television is 24/7 shouting heads, there remains good reason for newspapers to pay good money for this kind of criticism.
Don't take it personally, Ted, but I think it's "fazes", not "phases". ;)
I’m saving a copy of this! Might frame it.
Ted, this is such an excellent essay that I had to share it in several places!
My favorite quote:
"If you shoot hoops at the gym, no one cares, but if you play in the NBA Finals, a million people criticize your every move. And it’s just as true in everyday work environments—the more responsibility you take on, the more you will be scrutinized and found wanting. So at least comfort yourself with the realization that tough and even unwarranted criticism is typically a sign that you’ve made some genuine progress." -- Ted Gioia
"A man who fears ridicule will never go far, for good or ill: he remains on this side of his talents, and even if he has genius, he is doomed to mediocrity."
That line from Cioran sticks with me, and while I don't agree that one should read all criticism - particularly online - the rest resonates. Thank you.
I love the perspective of criticism from someone who both gives and receives it. I enjoyed reading this and mentioned before on an other post that what draws me to critical writing is that it’s a tool for learning that helps give better understanding into art we love in a deeper way.
I think the challenging truth is that criticism in its best form allows to grow and expand and draw from other perspectives to improve. But one thing I notice now in my forties is that you have to have a strong sense of self to be able to deal with it.
An enfant terrible boss lives rent free in our minds when we lack the self confidence to know they are full of it. Not to mention that often people try to push down others to lift themselves up, as well as all the perverse incentives that you mention (hot take click bait) whose destructive hatefulness with anonymity dehumanizes and cuts down rather than build up.
As someone whose had the type of success writing critical books I’d love to hear who inspired you or what you believe makes the best type of criticism.
As a fellow critic, I can relate. My big issue is how critical can you be? I feel like the bias, for various reasons, is towards positivity. Personally, I'm always looking for the interesting parts of the music, not so much whether I "like" it or not. I don't think it really matters if I like it or not, as along as the music stands on its own feet on its own terms.
These are rules to live (and work) by. Thank you.