Criticism can be good

In TT we are generally bad at giving constructive criticism, particularly in personal and family relationships, often haranguing the subject of our attention. We are not generous either in how we criticise people in public life or in how we respond to individuals and ideas we are unacquainted with. This results in our poor reaction to, and even lack of trust in, open analysis of our work.

But, in the arts, practitioners depend on the critic to open up their work to the ears and eyes of the public, to appreciate it and encourage us into ways of seeing and hearing. It is quite true that an artist may have a studio full of work but until someone engages with it only part of that artist’s work is done.

There is a dearth of good criticism of the arts and an absolute lack in specific areas of the arts in this country and throughout our region, outside of academia. That is not a healthy state of affairs as it leaves the public cultural space empty. We need to learn how to talk about our arts in a constructive way that grows us, and the artists, each gaining from the exchange of ideas.

I would argue that the criticism of our steel pan is inadequate, and other music when rarely we see it published in the media, similarly with our visual arts, drama and film, all of which we produce in respectable quantities.

Only literature has enjoyed an increased and informed window in recent times, and that is for very specific reasons. Yet, artists need criticism every bit as much as we need two hands to clap, and giving criticism is an art in itself.

At an intensive one-week workshop in literary and visual arts criticism last week, held in Jamaica, the literary editor of the UK Guardian newspaper and the writer and programme director at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Miami took 11 Caribbean culture writers through the dos and don’ts of good arts criticism, courtesy the Bocas Lit Fest, UWI (Mona) and the British Council.

A lot has been said, both good and bad, about critics: what immediately comes to mind is the writer Victor Hugo describing them as “fungus at the foot of oaks”, and I can’t remember who, remarking that no statue has even been put up by a critic.

For all that, the role of the critic is well developed, with critics sometimes wielding inordinate power, for example over theatre audiences in New York, where unfavourable reviews have shut down plays. I remember Derek Walcott’s 1998 collaboration with the legendary Paul Simon, The Capeman, not lasting more than two months on Broadway after the New York Times’ damning criticism.

Critics have responsibilities when sharing their opinion about a work; and we need to know that the critic does not present “the truth”. We have to learn to develop our own way of critiquing, but having a, hopefully, more knowledgeable and unbiased insight provides us with some basis for and guidance in shaping an opinion, possibly in opposition.

As for the writer or artist, getting feedback may mean learning how to take negative comments on the chin. Most artists find criticism difficult to accept, preferring a pat on the back but not everybody will like the work, even if it is a prize winner. Creators must distance themselves from their work in order to benefit from criticism, and I don’t mean being demonised on Facebook.

Together, we and they must improve our cultural environment, m a k i n g it richer, helping to feed our i n c r e a s - ingly impoverished souls.