On occasion, new companies and emerging artists with little experience request that their work be reviewed. During the Dublin Fringe Festival this is often par for the course, but outside of this context, it raises more problems. Obviously, publicity is useful, especially when the reaction is positive. But is a formal critical response always the best way to proceed?
While all theatre should be held to a high standard, it should not all be presumed to operate within the same context. There is a difference between youth theatre, documentary theatre and live art, for example,
that requires that different forms be assessed in the light of generic distinctions. But when it comes to certain types of community theatre or amateur dramatics, for instance, where success is more difficult to
determine, a review is not necessarily the right format in which to explore the practice. A lengthier, discursive article might well be a more fitting alternative.
The same might be said for fledgling artists who are presenting work for the first time. By inviting critics in at such an early stage to evaluate the work as professional, those involved are potentially
making themselves vulnerable in a way that is of little benefit to themselves or the work.
Recently I saw two productions of new writing that threw some of these questions into relief. Invited to review the shows, I did just that, while also feeling that a written critical response of back-to-back short plays might not be in the best interest of those involved. Despite my obligations in these instances, I thought that a less public and formal response might be more appropriate.
So, I wonder what is the value of very new companies or early career artists having their material critically responded to in the press or other public fora? Are those identifying as professional prepared to
be - or should they be - held to the same standards as more established practitioners? Might there be ways in which critics could be deployed more creatively to respond to the work on a more informal
basis in these early stages? A way that does not involve writing a review which, if negative, may be of little use to anyone? Critics are not necessarily dramaturgs, and there’s no reason why they should be part of the creative process, but if we believe (as some of us do) that critics have a role to play not only in the evaluation of work, but also, at some level, in its cultivation, then, in some cases at least, it might be better to reserve judgment.
Fintan Walsh