A French writer approaches a crowded restaurant and asks a critic if he can sit at his table. A critic who eats a dozen oysters says to him: “Excuse me, but I always dine alone. The author replies: “How dare you tell me when there are thirteen of you at the table?” »
Posted at 7:15 am
Yes, the author calls the critic a mollusk. Ironically, author Jules Barbe d’Aureville, a controversial dandy, was also a literary critic. Journalist and artist, like many before and after him. The talent of the writer brutal Praised in 19e century by his contemporary Baudelaire. But he was despised by Hugo, Zola and Flaubert. For a very simple reason: he criticized their novels. Hard.
“Nobody dreams of being a critic as a kid,” wrote an actress I really like on Facebook this week. I replied that I had always wanted to be a critic, as absurd as it seemed for an artist. I started a newspaper in fifth grade primary school called Primary PressIn this I am already writing about culture.
Contrary to what Claude Dubois sang in my childhood, I never wanted to be an artist. Does that make me a sympathetic failure, as Robert Charlebois claimed before I was born? Some will answer that they don’t like me…
This week, on the same Facebook page, another actress I really like expressed her regret for criticizing her work. Press Now rated on a scale of 1 to 10 rather than a scale of one to five stars. His comment made many actors, playwrights and directors respond positively.
I dare to play devil’s advocate by suggesting that, from a strictly mathematical perspective, a rating of 8 out of 10 equals a rating of 4 out of 5 stars. And I dare to add that ratings are widely used. For decades, in Quebec as well as in the United States and Europe, since to have to the guardian By reference music review site, Pitchfork, it rates 10 albums to the nearest decimal.
Some, like Rene Richard Cyr in our debates pages, reacted strongly. The director felt it was “a pity and deplorable to judge creative work in such a infantilizing way”, but there is a tendency in primary schools to judge students more by letters than by grades. I underestimate the trauma that some school systems can cause, and I understand the perception that artists are being overvalued by being awarded a number rather than a star.
I’m surprised artists don’t like ratings, ratings and charts. It amazes me that my profession is still misunderstood and despised by some artists. At Paul Arcand’s microphone on Thursday morning at 98.5 FM, René Richard Cyr, a little less diplomatic, described the work of my colleagues as “complicated moods”, more inclined to talk about “beige decor”. piece like the sonHe performed.
“Ideally, not read Press “, said a speaker on the Facebook page I mentioned at the beginning of the column. His comment was appreciated by the actors and at least one director (not René Richard Cyr). “We don’t need notes, but a report or an impression of the work, to arouse the interest of readers to see the play in theaters.” The actor writes, he also hosts a cultural event.
This leads to a great misunderstanding of the nature of the critic’s work. This work is not intended to stimulate the reader’s interest in seeing a play, performance, concert or film. There are press officers and promotion agents for that. My job, when I criticize, is to analyze a work as honestly and dispassionately as possible, given my background and my critical spirit.
I don’t write reviews for artists. Although they undoubtedly faced difficulties, obstacles were overcome and compromises had to be made during their long creative process. I write for readers who deserve more from me than an infomercial, and who are guided, yes, by words, but also by the universal convention of a star rating or number.
Sometimes, yes, I am harsh. Because contrary to what the ads and press releases suggest, all is not always great and extraordinary. Artists are articulate and they know it. Besides, I don’t know any journalist who criticizes one artist’s work more than another.
No one likes to be criticized. But as Beaumarchais says: “Without freedom to blame, there is no praise to praise. Artists are not elementary school students who need to be protected from the impact of failure.
As René Richard Cyr notes about the 10 mark, “paediatrics” means adding a star to an artist’s Canada notebook for his continued effort and great enthusiasm in his participation.
Dimensions are one factor among many others that allow comparison of different perspectives on a task. Discussion of art is inseparable from art. If a play is never reviewed and remains only in the memory of the audience, is the theater at a loss? I think so. Word of mouth can fill a room. But critical discourse on art allows a work to exist over time and become part of its time and history.
I was talking to a friend and colleague of mine this week to have Manon Dumais, on Emilie Perreault’s radio show on Radio-Canada, films made by Quebec women that rose to 2 in the popular mediafilm ratings ranks (great). Mediafilm has been assigning ratings on a scale of 1 to 7 since 1968. Artists have had time to get used to it.
I am not fooled. Some artists keep calling me a mollusk, a parasite or a leech. I am the wasp that they are allergic to. I sting sometimes, but whether they like it or not, I’m part of their ecosystem.
