Chekhov’s Mistess

On The Art of On-line Criticism

[also posted at Metaxucafe]

I’ve been wading in SQL queries over at MetaxuCafe and have had little time to write down my impressions of Tuesday’s blogging panel at the MAKOR Center (the hipster Westside version of the 92nd St. Y), but James Marcus was there too and he captures the event quite well.

Here are a few of my thoughts:

It was cold and most of New York seemed to be spending their evening in chain stores, so the crowd at MAKOR was spare, centering on two not-yet elderly women who I imagine go to two-thirds of all panel discussions. Around those two outofplacers were some friends of the speakers and a handful of intent listeners.

Bryan Keefer, assistant managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review on-line, moderated the panel. His extensive preparation gave me the distinct feeling I would one day see him sitting across the table from Tim Russert or Tucker Carlson (Keefer recently co-authored All the President’s Spin). The panelists were Terry Teachout, cultural critic for the WSJ, Maud Newton of MaudNewton.com, and Sasha Frere-Jones, the pop music critic for the New Yorker.

These were interesting speakers for the topic, but for some reason I thought the discussion was going to be more about the art of criticism in its on-line form (as in how to write a good review when writing on-line) and less about the relationship between print media and blogging. Perhaps it’s just gravity, but the discussion couldn’t escape the blogging phenomenon and questions of ‘why blog’ or ‘will critics be replaced by bloggers’ were the actual subject (answers: dunno and not really). Nonetheless, these are worthy topics even if unanswerable to a degree and the fact that they’re being discussed in so many forums validates blogging as a medium for criticism.

The three panelists brought distinctly different attitudes to the table. Sasha Frere-Jones – with the casually ironic demeanor only a pop-critic for a sophisticated magazine could pull off without seeming affected – brushed off his own blog (which appears to have no cultural criticism except links to his New Yorker columns) by saying he can’t post what he wants because his most important work goes into said magazine. He writes for the general lay-reader at the New Yorker though, and likes that he can write whatever he wants at his blog.

Both Frere-Jones and Teachout get their cultural news from Maud’s blog, they said. Maud in turn, as the one primary-blogger (i.e. not having the print media presence of her companions), seemed uncomfortable at the suggestion that her site played a role in the future of cultural criticism – but that is a point about which Mr. Frere-Jones and Teachout both seemed to agree. Teachout praised Maud not only for her worthy links, but for her original writing as well.

Although blogs will not overtake professional critics, Mr. Teachout said that coverage of cultural events can well be handled by avid amateurs, particularly since local newspapers tend to be pretty poor at it. Blogs, he says, have the potential to reinvigorate cultural criticism. As far as his own site, he enjoys it for the opportunity for instant feedback and the fact that he doesn’t have a word count bogey; you can write one or two sentences if that’s all you really have to say, and sometimes it is (Frere-Jones agreed).

Teachout’s enthusiasm, particularly sitting next to irony and self-effacement, was notable. As a major critic pushing 50 (he mentioned) he seems to have wholly embraced the notion of the blog, doesn’t fear his own criticism being diluted and indicated that anyone can be a part of the conversation if they’re smart (and link to the most popular sites!). He said that he predicted several years ago that high culture criticism would migrate to the Web, but did not foresee blogs.

All the panelists agreed that the blog served at their pleasure (although for Maud, it’s sometimes an uneasy relationship) and Mr. Teachout said that you should wake up in the morning and ask “what interests me?” and write about that and nothing else. When it seems like work, they concertedly said, then stop. In my opinion that flies in the face – a bit – of the point about bloggers playing a role in the future of criticism. If a writer can potentially jump-start his or her career by blogging, then they’re going to work at it.

What did I take away from the event? First and foremost, resist those tempting three pints of Bass before going to hour-and-a-half discussions of cultural criticism (or resist going to the discussion).

Some people aren’t sure why exactly they have a blog, but they do.

Blogging should be fun.

And lastly, in some small way blogging has the potential to give voice to people who might not otherwise be a part of the discussion, fill in the gaps where the mainstream media can’t cover, and for the talented few, boost a fledgling career.

There’s probably more I should have gotten from the discussion, but see the first point.

comments

Very interesting post, the fact that it took the direction it did doesn’t surprise me as much as how easily “Print Critics” seem to be able to understand if not welcome other voices into their sphere.

They will find that their blogs will liberate them from the constraints of a column and an editor.

    – Sand Storm (12/09  at  12:42 AM)

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments

Next entry: Papa on Fatherhood
Previous entry: Nyet Zembla

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: December 08, 2005
• Filed Under:
  Litbloggers & Blog Floggers

• Comments:1
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -