Criticizing the Critics

Hooray for Counterpunch! Someone is finally speaking out against The Times’ disagreeable and critical critics, Martin Bernheimer in music and Peter Ranier in films. I would like to add a third: Cathy Curtis in art. These people seem to think writing a critique is to write critically in a mean-spirited, negative sense.

I have been appalled at Peter Ranier’s film reviews. Starting with negative comments, he then proceeds to tell the story of the film (I’m not happy to learn the whole story before seeing it), and then he trashes the film with venom and sarcasm. This has happened time and again to films I thoroughly enjoyed. Who benefits from this type of review?

Cathy Curtis likes one kind of art and cannot discuss reasonably any others. She could not make one positive, intelligent remark about the Laguna Art Museum’s exhibit “California Light: The Early California Impressionists.” She called the whole exhibit “boring.” Obviously, she does not like this kind of art. Why was she asked to review the exhibit?

Martin Bernheimer is a complete opposite of my very favorite Times music critic, Albert Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg was a lover of all kinds of music--symphonies, operas, solo vocalists and musicians, chamber music--and he wrote his reviews with such enthusiasm, knowledge and intelligence, it was a pleasure to read every review.

Robert Kirsch, book reviewer for The Times, was another favorite of mine. He discussed such a wide range of books with such intelligence and zeal, I wanted to read them all. In fact, I hope The Times will publish his reviews sometime so we can rediscover those novels, biographies and essays of yesterday.

PAT BARTZ

Costa Mesa