Criticizing critics

There are a variety of reasons why I suspect arts critics may not always be given their due (“Critical Condition,” May 22). While some critics understand the importance of writing a fair and balanced review, there is a growing tide of critics who tend to write between two polarities: Something is either very good or very bad. Rarely do I come across a carefully nuanced piece that would lead me to believe the reviewer has taken the time to consider what might limit the work without completely dismissing it.

When something is worth praising, the reviewer sometimes gushes, and I find myself a bit suspicious. Is it the best thing since sliced bread again? Readers might trust reviewers more if they did not always embrace or dismiss with such ease.

I think it is fair to ask reviewers to be more judicious in their work. It is not about wielding the power that journalists once held, but about gaining the authority to have one’s opinion be trusted.

Dennis Recio

San Francisco

Recio teaches in the English department at the University of San Francisco.

*

When any piece of art, be it a play, a book, a movie or a concert work, overwhelmingly and consistently connects with, entertains and wins its audience, it calls into question the credibility of a critic whose impulse is to say, all too often, “This is not working, and you’re wrong to be enjoying this.” Conversely, it’s OK to champion something that may only be of interest to five people, in the hopes of broadening the public taste, but a critic serves nobody but himself when he punishes a work for having the “misfortune” of being commercially appealing.

Andrew Chukerman

Los Angeles

*

I think there are other reasons that, if a national critics’ convention were bombed by terrorists, nobody would retaliate.

In “All About Eve,” Margo Channing is a popular, accomplished actress. She’s appearing in a popular play, something of a vehicle for her. For all of Addison DeWitt’s venom and ennui, he is a member of the same insular, sophisticated group of New York theatergoers as his audience. The trouble with today’s critics, and L.A. Times critics in particular, is that they are not in touch with their audiences.

The Times should be a broad market publication, and its reviews should be aimed at the broad audience. Instead, the art critics carp if LACMA has a popular, accessible exhibit (or Steve Wynn outbids the Getty and every other museum in the world); they rave about obscure, depressing, R-rated films (“indies”) and malign romantic comedies in which the boy and girl get together at the end.

People fill the multiplexes to be entertained, not to see an experiment. If you want to write art criticism only for people with an MFA from Smith or movie criticism for people who see films only at major film festivals, you should be working for a specialist publication, not The Times.

Peter Grant

Los Angeles