I had a professor years ago who said we were free to look at the criticism for any book we read in class but half of it was junk and our views were probably better.  I found that good advice at the time; and as I have noted the decline in critical thinking and writing in the last several decades, I'd revise that figure upward.   Maybe we're living in an 80-20 world (a business rule of thumb), where 20 percent of the critics explain 80 percent of what is going on in any given field.  Maybe it's less in the media.   

When you start an art collection, everyone advises you to see as much as possible, then determine what you like and why.  The same can be said about art appreciation in general.  The critic's review is merely a subjective assessment of what he or she likes.  But, from your standpoint, it's only what you like about an art form in general or a specific work in particular that is important.

When you read a review (even mine!) do you get a sense the critic likes the art form? For many of them it's a job, one they fell into perhaps or one they've held too long - they're burned out.  An artistic director told me once that a particular critic showed signs of having seen "one show too many."  This is, I think, an occupational hazard of the genre; there's a finite lifespan for a critic and you have to know when to get out.  Many don't or can't. 

Here's my take on the various art forms I like to follow and how to make sense of them:  

Theater

• I don't worry about negative reviews and neither should you. If I've been burned here, it's been the result of the overly positive ones; my expectations were raised unrealistically.
• I can count on one hand the number of shows I've walked out of. There's something memorable for everyone,  in every play.
• Take a look at a script, even if you skim it, or go online and scan the synopsis, to enter the inner world of a play. You'll pick up the pace at the outset. Classics tend to start slow, dipping your feet into the water, while newer works throw you in immediately. Some preparation is better than none.
• Is the storyline clear? How about the overall consistency? What week in the run is the show? If earlier than later, you may want to make allowances for timing and delivery.
• Consider the venue. Smaller companies have less resources, sure, but high production values are not so much about money as they are artistic commitment. A unified, creative approach can be achieved on a limited budget, while throwing money at a show won't guarantee a winner (Consider the Boston Red Sox!).
  
• Is the production geared towards an audience or to a grants committee?

Music: Classical & Otherwise

• Probably the worst criticism from the music lover's perspective comes through the newspapers. Consider carefully any classical musical reviews as well as those of popular musicians who have struck it big (envy, to put it mildly, lurks at the heart of many a pan).
• Live music is an exciting event with accomplished musicians (the talent out there is amazing) and is always superior to a recording. You hear the sound multi-directionally in a live performance, not through a pair of speakers and not digitally, which sounds artificial.
• Classical music performed in concert halls, even imperfect ones, is an audio delight, with full dynamic range coming at you "pan-aurally" and in layers.
• The excitement of an international star is palpable whether in a classical concert or rock/pop tour.
• Critics look down on warhorses of the classical repertoire and golden oldies of the mainstream.
• Don't worry about minutia - do the horns come in too soon in third movement: who cares? And putting that song across live is more important than either the quality of vocalization or instrumentals. A recording has umpteen takes and highly trained sessions musicians will sit in for the group at the studio. Even Dylan and The Beach Boys can sound good!

Art

• Approach an exhibition or show as if you were a collector or juror. Would you want to own the work of art and how good is it?
• The field of art is rife with conflict of interest. Critics may be courted by dealers, collectors, curators, museums, and auction houses to drive up the price or to benefit their careers.
• Despite what you read, is the work any good (really)? Does it demonstrate mastery in its field; is it is highly original or overtly derivative (i.e., a knock-off) or a quick production run? If not, maybe you're buying the brand, that is, the sizzle and not the steak.
• Does the reviewer have an agenda (or does his or her media outlet)? Is the art supposed to be good or bad for you, i.e., move you in certain sanctioned ways amenable to the writer or publication?
• Never (Never!) buy art as an investment (Never!!). Just like the stock market you can be surprised and disappointed in big ways, suddenly. Buy on aesthetic grounds, not monetary.

 Books

• Give a book 100 pages to make its case and if it still doesn't, pick-up something else. It's not for you.
• Is the reviewer an author too? If so, he or she may have friends to keep or make, or be looking at scores to settle (BTW, the same applies in all the arts, it's just that in this category it appears more blatant.)
• You can judge a book by its cover; it will show in the publishing, editing, clarity, the overall packaging of the work, and that's indicative of the quality. With over 500, 000 titles issued a year recyclable material is easy to spot.
• Other than interesting reviews that catch your eye, try the New York Times top 10 or 100. Classics, regular or cult, have lasted for a reason. Be wary of Award winners and Best sellers.
• Treat reviews on Amazon or other internet sites for information purposes only.

Movies

• These are a form of virtual reality. They are a spectator sport par excellence, offering you a worm's eye view into a unique world with little need for preparation or mental exercise. Chill.
• All of the above under books should be considered when evaluating the merit of the work or the critic.
• Unlike theater where there's too little time, for film there may be too much.
• Movies come in two flavors, the traditional three-act or auteur. Which one is it, does it work, and do you and the critic see it the same way or differently?
• If there's a split between critics and everyone else and it's big, go with everyone else. If the pace is described as too slow, this may reflect the critic's bias for three-act structures. Frequently filmmakers want to slow you the viewer down so you can get a more considered look at what is happening.
• There are flaws in meta-analysis (i.e, "Rotten Tomatoes" and the like) compilations. Lumping reviews into one hopper mixes apples with oranges.
• Spoiler alerts are for film novices. If it's a good movie, you'll want to watch it again. I can think of only two movies where I didn't want to know the ending - The Crying Game and The Sixth Sense and even with these there was a kind of manipulation at work in the plot and the marketing.

These are my biased views on evaluating criticism and the art form of your choice.  While there's no accounting for taste, your palette is the only one that matters when you sit down to this banquet.  Bon appétit!

© John F. Glass, October 1, 2011