What qualifies the critic?

THE EDITOR: Having had Carnival Messiah reviews all in, and the ensuing discussion that abounded, I am left to ask a few questions: 1) What qualifies a person to criticise an artistic work in the media? 2) Who is responsible if a critic is not artistically sensitive enough to understand the relativity of a performance? 3) Does the critic and by extension the media have a responsibility to support our local art forms? 4) What is the power of the critic’s pen.

Ms Connor has spent her life developing her talent and had undertaken a monumental task in blending the skills of professionals, semi-professionals, and amateurs. The ballet dancer worked alongside the best village dancer, the classical singer alongside the Rapso artiste. The Indian culture was displayed along with all other cultures, with none in prominence. “Trini to de bone!” She got corporate support because she had a good product and the country needed to see it. (The Prime Minister has now expanded on Ms Connor’s concept with his race relations committee). If the media have any sort of policy on support for the arts, I hope and pray competence and a history in the arts in the reporter’s CV forms part of it.

An English examiner must be qualified in English. Now I ask, How much performance is used as criteria to qualify a critic? Is there any need for a critic to have done any artistic work before being allowed to pontificate on the contributions of artists? In claims, one of the best reviews of the Carnival Messiah was published in the Catholic News, Sunday August 16, 2003. On behalf of all artistes, we need the media, but we need responsible media personnel. Editors should know who to keep on a short leash; it’s not what you say, but how it’s said.

ANTHONY WOODROFFE SNR
Musical Director