|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
"Critics are Parasites and Eunuchs"Soapbox Debate at the Menier Chocolate FactoryDateline: 13th December, 2006The Soapbox team, led by Patrick Marmion and Rachel Halliburton, have created considerable excitement and, on occasion bile, with their programme of debates about issues of deep artistic importance. In some ways, the final debate of 2006, with its deeply provocative title, Critics are Parasites and Eunuchs, promised to be the most controversial of all. In fact, rather strangely, at certain points all four of the guests, not to mention chair Rachel Halliburton, seemed to be speaking vehemently against the proposition. It is therefore hardly surprising that the audience felt that critics are neither parasites nor eunuchs or, perhaps more accurately, that their parasitic relationship with the artists on whom they feed is mutually beneficial. When it came to a vote, there were only three hands raised in favour of the motion and two of those came from the proposer and seconder, both of whom looked a little sheepish about having to support something that clearly neither really believed in too strongly. Having said that, both spoke well on an evening where comedy and sexuality shared the floor for much of the hour. It is still something of a mystery how a debate about the value of artistic criticism and the purveyors of that clearly useful product should have led the speakers to use sexual imagery almost throughout. Proposing the motion was American actor Mike McShane, perhaps still best known for his improvisational work in Whose Line Is It Anyway? He bravely made himself available for a debate that was due to end a mere half-hour before he had to turn himself into the giant pot plant Audrey 2 in Little Shop of Horrors. Indeed, he spoke just outside the front door of Mishnik's Florists where he was expecting to have such fun just afterwards. The always funny McShane had no doubt that critics are parasites and went further suggesting that they are wide not deep. He really got into his comic stride when he began to talk about the relationship between critics and artists suggesting "it always turns into a bad romance" and then went on to characterise the typical critic as not just a eunuch but "a eunuch with a strap-on"! The Evening Standard's theatre critic, Nicholas de Jongh, may also have to take some of the blame for failing to censor the sex out of criticism when he opposed the motion. His belief is that critics are parasexual therapists who are part of a whorehouse. He went on to describe reviews as containing "a degree of ecstasy and utter bliss" concentrating on the quasi-sexual and orgasmic elements of the work. While recognising the intellectual and emotional qualities necessary to be a good critic, he particularly identified the ability of the best of them to unlock a play's code and its mystery. Without critics, he asked, would Ibsen's Ghosts or a number of other plays ever have entered the classical canon? To summarise his position as he approached the climax very much in character, de Jongh concluded by suggesting that what a critic actually does for his public is "enable you to achieve your orgasm". This might explain why Evening Standard is a popular and he personally has such a wide readership. Following him was Nick Hackworth, an art critic poacher turned gamekeeper who spent seven years as a parasite before jumping ship and becoming a curator or, in the words of Sarah Kent, a dealer. It wasn't clear whether her accusation referred to art or some other more dubious substances. His debating style was humorous but, at times, there was a real question as to whether he would not have been better placed on the other side of the debate. He accepted that critics were parasites but was insistent that artists were also parasites. He then quoted Wikipedia to identify the different classifications of parasites into which critics might be pigeon-holed. Perhaps the most appropriate definition was that of an epiparasite, which is one that feeds off another. The final speaker opposing the debate was Sarah Kent, until recently the lead art critic at Time Out. She believed their criticism was a secondary discipline and, elaborating on Nick Hackworth's idea, baldly stated that "artists are parasites on art history". She was little more polite about some critics saying that "bad critics think that art is a primary discipline and use artists to prove their own theses". Ultimately though, she had little doubt that artists need critics as much as critics need artists. It is only through the medium of critics that artists are able to work in a context and it is critics that allow them to be received intelligibly. The debate was then thrown open to the floor but unusually, even during the questions and answers, for the most part it was at the top table that the hottest debate raged. Views from the floor included the question as to whether criticism is really just a tool for marketing. There was also a lengthy series of questions and comments regarding the interrelationship between critics and the art on which they comment. At one end of the scale was the view that critics are just frustrated artists who are hated and really must learn some humility. At the other, there are those who thought that it was good to have somebody who would just say what they think about a play, a film or a piece of representational art. This last role has become increasingly important in the art world as artists are given every opportunity to promote their own views and inevitably, these will be positive about their work, even where they might have had an off day. The final conclusion is that critics are not parasites and eunuchs and therefore it must be presumed that, at least at the Menier, they are regarded as valuable and much-needed members of society, as well as the best sex therapists in town. Philip Fisher
|
|
|
|