The average Fringe-goer in 2022 could be forgiven for thinking that the city was swimming almost exclusively amongst perfect or nearly perfect shows (4 and 5 stars), and un-rated shows.
It’s not true.
Let’s deal with the obvious first: creators don’t tend to boast about 3 star reviews or below, and the public tend not to read them unless they are absolutely excoriating; the ‘slowing down to peer at a car crash phenomenon.’
Now there’s another article to be written about the necessary rehabilitation of the 3 star review as a good review, but that will have to wait.
None of this explains why quite so many shows were able to sport at least one glowing review on their posters and social media. Yes, this is anecdotal, but it’s an issue that’s come up time and again this year. Time and again I’ve directly witnessed audiences grumbling/sniggering about shows not living up to their press hype.
I’m here to discuss the almost lawless realm of arts reviewing, and why we need to talk about quality control. Of course, this being the world of the arts, that quality control must be implemented in a topsy-turvy way, by you dear reader. That’s right, by you.
What can I do?
- Start paying attention to the people writing the reviews, and the publications containing them
- Reflect after seeing a production if you agree with the review/s you read
- If you agree, then make a mental note to trust that reviewer/publication a little more
- If you don’t, then make a mental note to treat that reviewer/publication with an extra pinch of salt
- Be vocal in your opinions of which reviewer/publication provides the best/worst critiques.
Caveat: if you’re looking at reviews of your own show, it’s going to be tough to be objective. The QR advises forming your opinion of reviewing publications by their critiques of other people’s work.
Why does it matter?
Because if arts criticism is to be worth a damn, then it should be continually encouraged towards the highest standards. Allowing certain publications to rest on their laurels simply through perceived standing: national publication, print publication, long history, huge readership, only leads to lazy work.
The pitfalls are many:
Rewarding work concentrating on important subjects rather than its artistic excellence.
Failing to interrogate very good work for imperfections.
Being kind or mean, rather than respectful.
Posting glowing reviews for the traffic boost.
Being inconsistent in what make for a perfect, or nearly perfect production.
Star rating inflation – ‘the only good shows are 4⭐ or above‘ mentality.
The list goes on…
What happens if we don’t review the reviewers?
The entire profession becomes somewhat worthless. In a world where the public doesn’t demand the highest standards from reviewers, then the relentless forces of capitalism (generating traffic, readership, sales, clicks) will drive the industry to a bad, bad place.
A few, loud, well-financed voices will dominate the landscape, drowning out diversity of opinion, and thus diversity of information available to the paying public. It’s already bad, just read the accounts of the two experienced leaders of the Wee Review and Fringe Guru talking about the current condition of Fringe reviewing.
A culture in which the quality of a reviewer’s work is appreciated, and not just taken for granted is one way by which standards can be uplifted throughout the industry. Boosting the voices that have reliably guided you to tickets you enjoyed, will help them survive, and perhaps even thrive.
It will also improve the chances of the next glowing review you read leading to a memorably good time, and an unregretted ticket.
The rub
Of course, no review can ever be completely objective. Absolute objectivity in the evaluation of art is obviously impossible. Therefore no matter how much trust a critic has earned from you, there will always be a chance of a mismatch of sensibilities. It will still be less like playing Russian Roulette with your hard won money, and more like putting your cash on the hot favourite in a horse race.
By
By
By
Now, if we could just do that for books, too.
It’s good advice. We already know that some sites are more likely to give us something we can agree with (other sites, with which we can violently disagree), and it helps us choose.