 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Friday 15 July 2002 Reviewing the Reviewer
I would like to endorse Malcolm Miller's call for arts reviewers to keep sight of their own approach, attitude and acumen when critiquing someone else's creative endeavour. (Letters to the Editor, CT, July 15)
However, I question his suggestion that reviewers use the first person more frequently, so as to make it clear to readers that the opinion voiced is not an omnipotent one. The Canberra Times has been littered of late with arts reviews that state a little too much of the reviewer's "first person" opinions on religion, sexuality, politics, art and life in general. Sure, most readers desire to know what an art work is about, what was effective or ineffective about it, and what grander themes it may explore. But when this is outweighed by the reviewer's personal agenda or world view, and worse, their own life story, then the critic has things terribly out of balance.
When this happens the reviewer needs to become an artist and create something rather than critique it.