“You know, I sort of like him, even though everyone else thinks he’s the devil,” I said.
My friend, drinking steamed milk, nearly spit it out in a fit of laughter.
And who was “the devil” you ask? Chief dance critic of the New York Times, Alastair Macauley. My friend and I were having another chat about critics, and despite Macauley’s recent jabs at City Ballet I like his style. (By the way, I found the article thanks to Philip, who also provided a well-written response on his blog.)
Being in the city has taught me about my taste. I like critics who write vividly, but also critics I can trust will be honest. Not that scathing reviews are necessarily welcome, but they aren’t necessarily bad. When I read a critic who is bold enough to write what they felt (and brave enough to sign their name to it) I feel that they are more credible, and look to them more often than those who write tepid and topical reviews.
It’s kind of like asking your friends if you’re outfit is too tacky, too bright, or if it makes you look fat. If you want the truth, you’ll ask your friend who doesn’t care much about hurting your feelings, instead the one who’ll always say yes.
3 responses so far ↓
sophie // March 11, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I also like Macauley’s style, whether or not I agree with everything he says.
In general, though, I feel like reading critics’ opinions expands my own horizons and allows me to be more aware and examine why I think the things I do about certain works of art (dance, music, etc etc)
Meg // March 11, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I like Macauley’s style–most of the time–as well. Is he at times rather harsh? Absolutely. But I prefer that kind of approach to a more delicate or gentle one. I also think his style of criticism is very British–no surprise there!–which, at least in my reading experience, tends to be somewhat different in tone than much of the criticism one sees from American critics. I’m not saying that one is better than the other, just that I do think there’s something a stylistic difference. Although that’s a generalization of course.
One thing I particularly like about Macauley, at least in his ballet criticism which I think is superior to much of his other dance criticism, is that he has consistent and clearly-expressed views not only of what he dislikes about WHY he is dislikes those things and what he wishes he was seeing. After reading his reviews for the last year or so I know not only what he dislikes about companies like NYCB and ABT but also what he wants from them and thinks they’re capable of. That seems to me to be a service to the art form even if one doesn’t always–or often, even–agree with his assesments.
writingariel // March 12, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Thanks Meg and Sophie for the comments, I’m glad to find out I’m not the only one!
Leave a Comment