The Art of Criticism
an Institute of Ideas debate at the Fringe Club, Edinburgh
12 August 2000

Brendan O'Neill

On Saturday 12 August, The Institute of Ideas organised a day of discussion called Who's Criticising Whom?

This provided a unique opportunity for critics and performers at the Edinburgh festivals to come together for a bout of ruthless critiques and constructive banter. The first session, The Art of Criticism, was an articulate, in-depth discussion on the role of the critic today and whether anyone has the right to judge what is good or bad.

Dan Britten, freelance critic, got the debate off to a good start by raising the idea that we live in a more relativistic world, where critics are often afraid to say anything too critical or judgemental. He also talked about the insidious influence of corporations - how could we trust what critics say, when one company can, for example, own the means to publish books and also the means to publish reviews of them? How do we know what is an objective view and what is a biased view?

Mark Fisher, editor of The List, Scotland's most important listings magazine, said that perhaps we should refer to critics as reviewers, because the writing about a show is often as throwaway as the show itself, rather than being an in-depth critique. He anticipated any criticism of The List's style of reviewing by pointing out that 100-word reviews and a five-star rating system may not be the height of literary and theatre criticism, but it is functional - people want to have ready access to something which tells them what is worth seeing and what isn't.

John Peter, esteemed theatre critic at The Sunday Times, bemoaned our 'relativistic age', where we stick to our own 'personal' opinions rather than stretching our minds and listening to those who are far more knowledgeable than ourselves. He argued for critics to be confident - to be aware that they know more than their readers do and to be sure that they have a good opinion worth sharing.

Joyce McMillan, chief theatre critic at The Scotsman, who is currently making performers in Edinburgh either very happy or suicidal with her opinions, agreed with John Peter that there is a general attitude that nobody's opinion is better than anyone else's - so critics, who assume to know better and get paid for parading their opinions, are seen in a negative light. But she argued that critics can positively challenge the 'culture of hype' by cutting through the rubbish and getting to the heart of a show.

The chair, Mark Ryan, a director of The Institute of Ideas, put it to the speakers that what has been lost is the authority of the critic - his strength of voice. In an age where every opinion is valid, there are no more great critics in the mould of Bernard Shaw, Tynan, and Toynbee.

The audience discussion took up the idea that we are today discouraged to take a strong line on anything and therefore criticism suffers. But rather than this being a call for a return to the age of deference, as John Peter argued, the real problem was that the arts and their audiences would suffer, through the lack of challenging and strong-headed critiques of what we see in our theatres, galleries and museums.