A few months ago, the ‘Fort Worth Star-Telegram’ laid off its last full-time arts critic. The same thing has happened with daily papers in Sacramento, Louisville and Cincinnati. Even Australia. The wave seemed to start last winter with major cutbacks at the ‘Wall Street Journal,’ which had expanded its coverage to compete with ‘The New York Times.’ Art & Seek chatted with several area arts leaders who are concerned about what this means for coverage of their efforts. In this week’s State of the Arts, reporter Hady Mawajdeh and Jerome Weeks discuss how the arts media landscape is being disrupted. Or transformed.
Our extended conversation:
Hady: Jerome, this is the latest wave of cutbacks in cultural coverage. But isn’t this the story we’ve been hearing for more than a decade now? Legacy media, like newspapers, have been downsizing staff because of their major losses in ad revenue. And arts reviewers have been a part of that.
To be fair, ‘Star-Telegram’ executive editor Lauren Gustus emailed me to say they’re not discontinuing reviews. They’re looking for great stories to tell to a cellphone-connected audience – just not necessarily in the “parameters of a classic ‘review.'”
But I have to say in the nearly two months since that email, features or reviews on Fort Worth arts have been rare.
Hady: So we do what everyone’s doing. We learn about what’s going on through our friends on Facebook, through our Twitter feeds.
“The buzz always helps. And that’s what you’re hoping for via social media. In terms of critical analysis of the work, ten years from now, what will we have to prove that this was important to what was happening in the world? That’s why we need good critics.”
Several directors also pointed out that when they apply for grants from some foundations, they’re required to prove they’re worth funding, what they do has value to the community. And tweets won’t do that; they need reviews.
Hady: So go online – there are plenty of bloggers and websites devoted to music acts and new art forms and behind-the-scene peeks at museums. They’re covering a lot that traditional media hasn’t really been covering, and for audiences they didn’t really address.
“A lot of the writing in some of these smaller sites are more informed and interesting and sharper than you used to get in the local papers.”
They have the space and time – and often the passion and the online smarts – to start some thinking and talking, at least on a broad level. The difficulty there, though, is that people have to find these sites, the local ones. It’s not the case, as it is with a general-interest audience, of simply hearing about a new dance performance on the radio or coming across a music review in the newspaper. People have to know about such sites already to follow them – or go to the trouble of looking them up. Who has the time or the patience?
Hady: So is this the last of the old-school cultural gatekeepers?
Hady: So how do we choose that experience?
So let’s reverse-engineer our thinking about digital and real-life: All the cultural offerings in a city are like a giant, analog version of Netflix. Or like the internet itself. People talk about binge-watching on Netflix or becoming immersed in the web. They don’t talk about what most of us actually do: scroll through menu after menu, webpage after webpage, cat video after cat video, wondering if this or that is something we’d enjoy, something worth stopping for and spending our time on.
The same thing with a city’s cultural offerings: How do we decide among all the concerts, simulcast operas, dance troupes, book signings, stand-up comics, movie screenings and pumpkin farms on a single weekend? Newspaper critics have been one, traditional guide. An educational service.
So are they being replaced effectively by their online counterparts? A number of the arts leaders I spoke with said print still has a significant impact locally. Word-of-mouth is what has always gotten an audience in the door. Print still can get word-of-mouth going. Dana Schultes of Stage West in Fort Worth said a review in the paper can mean the difference between a 50 percent house and a 100 percent house.
The reason newspaper critics are now being lost isn’t because media outlets haven’t tried to keep up with the times, haven’t addressed different audiences.
Or actually, it isn’t just because of those things. Those have been real failings.
But bottom-line, it’s because the cultural criticism we provide is local [see postscript below for evidence from the ‘New York Times’]. In many cities across the country – outside of big touristy centers like New York, Chicago or LA, where a commercial arts industry flourishes – there’s not enough money, not enough of a general-readership market to support paid, full-time, on-staff local reviewers. Even when legacy media companies go online with their local coverage, they generally imprison it in the crude metric of ‘clicks’: How many viewers do local reviews actually get? Newspaper editors have repeatedly found: not that many.
For his part, Jacques Marquis, the CEO of the Cliburn, is more sanguine about the upheavals than most arts leaders. He sees the relationship between arts groups and the local newspaper as a give-and-take. He understands the financial constraints newspapers are currently under: “We’re trying to work with them more closely to understand their needs and their way of doing things in order to work as a partner with them.” It’s worth noting: The ‘Star-Telegram’ is a media sponsor of the Cliburn.
So we’re in this odd situation with online and print and their audiences: Smart websites, including Hyperallergic and Glasstire, have brought back long-form arts essays (partly as a result, Glasstire’s editor-in-chief, Christina Rees, recently won the first $40,000 Rabkin Prize for arts writing). Yet newspaper editors say their online reviews barely draw readers. It may be a generational change – with younger arts goers preferring the quick hit on their smartphones. But it would also seem that knowledgeable arts followers track such sites for the thoughtful considerations they’re looking for, a deep dive into an art form, while the general-interest reader is happy with the grab-bag round-up and the snapshot assessment: Go or don’t go?
When we think of cultural critics – if we think of them at all – we often imagine the current crop as descendants of a line that started with, say, Giorgio Vasari on Italian Renaissance artists through Charles Baudelaire’s literary criticism and George Bernard Shaw’s theater reviews and on up to influential figures like Edmund Wilson and Clement Greenberg in New York in the ’50s and ’60s.
The flaw with this imagined line of ancestry is that all the Great Critics from the past typically lived and worked in their country’s major cultural center: Florence, Paris, London, New York. In America – outside New York City – local arts reviewers didn’t appear in most daily papers until the mid-‘70s – back when even medium-sized newspapers were pulling down 18 percent profit margins. Newspaper owners and editors began getting ambitious, feeling they needed to be taken seriously and their city’s cultural climate needed to be seen as sophisticated (or just given a boost). Before that, big-city daily newspapers often just had a single ‘arts columnist,’ a local arbiter of taste, often the society columnist or certainly a columnist who appeared on the ‘society’ or ‘woman’s page’ – much like the very influential John Rosenfield did at ‘The Dallas Morning News.’
In other words, our hinterland newspaper reviewers have existed only for what amounts to a blip of cultural time, just the last 40 years. So it’s little surprise that when the 18 percent profit margins went away, the reviewers did as well – and the pages they once commanded. What was seen as a readers’ service has mostly been jettisoned.
Seen in this historical perspective, it’s apparent newspapers, magazines and arts journalism in general are essentially returning to the baseline situation that has prevailed in cultural criticism in America since … well, forever. One of the reasons Edgar Allan Poe’s life was so desperate is that he was one of the first Americans to try to make a full-time living as an editor-poet-lecturer-journalist-fiction-writer-critic. Poe wrote during an early golden age of literary journals and periodicals in America, and he became a lightning rod, an influential literary figure.
And he never really escaped grinding poverty.
Hady: Again, I return to my previous point. Go online.
I do go online for a lot. But that lack of real careers in local arts coverage holds online as well. What you’ll find on most such sites are reviewers who are the editors or the website founder, the only people making a living with the site. You’ll find many university teachers doing arts journalism as a sideline, as a passion, or you’ll find fans and boosters (who often could be found among local newspaper critics, of course). You’ll find artists and writers and musicians doing podcasts and videos, often bringing their creativity to the form.
In other words, it’s mostly freelancers. Nothing wrong with that. Freelancers have produced some of our best writing. But as Doug McLennan of Artsjournal.com pointed out, what we’re missing these days is arts coverage as news: the kind of long-term, in-depth coverage the ‘LATimes’ did on the Getty, for instance, which resulted in the director resigning. Freelancers generally can’t do that kind of journalism.
In the end, what we may be seeing is the finale for a (fleeting, momentary) profession in America: the local, big-city, drama, book, music, film or visual arts critic writing for a general audience.
Or look at it like this: Professional cultural journalism is not just returning to its classic form in America. It’s joining the rest of the cultural industry transformed, for good and bad, by digital change. There’s lots of arts journalism all over the place, but it’s mostly becoming part-time, piecemeal. Very few people outside of the coasts are making a living at it.
Still, as Doug McLennan also pointed out, many of us claimed the American bookstore was dead because of Amazon. Yet the past several years have seen incredible growth in the numbers of small, independent bookstores.
So there’s that: Small and local can fill a need.
Hady: So where does that leave art groups?
That’s something else McLennan said: Quality content is what eventually wins out – in the arts, online and in journalism.
Postscript 2: As evidence for my contention that it’s not so much arts news or reviews that are the problem online, it’s actually their local focus, there’s this article from the ‘NYTimes’ on how several news outlets that have been focused entirely on local news are failing or cutting back, at least in Manhattan. And if you can’t make local news pay in Manhattan, where can you?
But in the financially daunting era of digital journalism, there has been no tougher nut to crack than making local news profitable, a lesson Mr. Ricketts, who lost money every month of DNAinfo’s existence, is just the latest to learn. In New York City, the nation’s biggest media market, established organizations such as The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal and The Daily News have slashed staff or withdrawn from street-level reporting. The Voice stopped publishing its print edition in September.
Image above and outfront: Shutterstock.