Blog Critics Timeout

Daniel Dilling
9-24-11
Blog Critics Timeout

      The best point was said by Donna Seaman: “Yes. One must also have the urge to share one’s enthusiasms. To advocate. To be clear about what it is that matters in a work of art.” This came early into the dialogue, it was an answer asked by Kris Vile, which he advocated “Is passion more important than education?” Of course it is, though they are interweaving tools of the critic. Both passion and education come in different mediums. Passion allows the critic to have a honed perception of their field; that they research into their desired field, gaining background and insight of previous entries made by artists or performers. The point is re-asserted by Donna that “Ongoing self-education is essential.” This is derived by passion, that a good music critic will look back into the past, and research the past genres that evolved into a current trend. Critiquing the past genres combined with Ebert’s little black book: that the reader ‘should be informed’ but not lectured. Same rule applies to any other critic, be it theater, food, books, whatever the subject may be, is scrutinized by prior inspirations or fusions. Passion is the drive that motivates any expressive person to do anything, perform, review, or simply enjoy. Anne Holub said it best, that “You have to have a passion for it; otherwise, you’re simply not going to bother.” It would be a tough sale to ask a mechanic to paint a picture; even if money was involved it would lack inspiration, though there would be a sort of motivation.

              Another provoking question was asked by Kurt Vire: “Let’s talk about the difference between “amateurs” and ‘professionals.’ Don, for instance, reviews theater on his own blog. Anne doesn’t get paid for her work on Transmission. Should they be given less credence than critics who’ve been hired by some print publication?” Establishing an air between the amateur or the professional, Sam Jones’ answer “I think the difference is often just accidental.” A humble answer, for it is such a philosophical question, ‘Is a professional paid?’ seems to be the main dam separating the two. Difficult answer, any good writer simply remains dedicated, reviewed, and enjoyed. It has nothing to with having being extremely rich or having a high profile. In the case of Stephen King, he makes more than anybody working at Columbia by writing ‘Boo!’ on a cocktail napkin and signing it. The concern in the forum regarding professionalism speculates payment, but the consensus rejects that platform on the aforementioned reasons. Lastly, insight from Sam Jones: “The question is whether the market appreciates the editorial function enough to pay for it.” In a world where as Donna Seaman says “We want everything for free.” Like newspapers, ads are indeed dominating revenue for creative content and forums. To be paid would require a fellowship of readers, however, this again does not define any sort of difference between the professional or amateur still. Some write for the love of writing, payment not required and the question of writing quality is not in peril.