Sunday, September 18, 2011

The Thread, September 18, 2011

The Thread

Many theatre artists believe the form does not need critics. However, stats at CharPo-Canada and CharPo-Montreal are clear: traffic goes way up when reviews appear on the sites. So SOMEONE likes this stuff!  Just how important are critics to the dialogue that is theatre? Discuss.


  1. what is any Western artform without the academy?

    The critic is a torch-holder of values, of the history, of mapping innovation or change in the form.

    I do feel it's a pity that most critics I've read seem to be reporters first.

    If a critic knows nothing about theatre history beyond 1950 (which by the way, includes how ideas of acting, lighting, and direction have changed), then they should stop collecting a salary.

    Sure, a part of a critic's work is to understand their audience, and speak to them as such. They are also responsible though for understanding a work's place in history (its relevance, its innovation), and acting as public facilitator of these ideas, WHILE negotiating, embracing, and being critical of their own taste.


Comments are moderated. Please read our guidelines for posting comments.