Barcelona Metropolis

As critics, we encounter the same challenges affecting modern journalism. In print media, we deal with a new type of reader who is influenced by contemporary references and prefers to get their information from non-traditional sources. To address this, we broaden our horizons while continuing our work as usual, fully aware that our primary role is to offer recommendations and opinions, regardless of our role as cultural journalists, which is to inform and disseminate.

We remain a vital part of the cultural landscape and must recognise the significant influence we have, as we can sway whether someone continues (or stops) watching a programme or series (perhaps even more), just as critics in other fields impact reactions to a play, exhibition, performance, film or book. In my opinion, criticism continues to be a bridge or conduit between the work and the audience. In our case, we enjoy complete freedom of opinion, free from editorial constraints. Our biggest challenge is the rush (a common issue today) to publish the day after a broadcast, which sometimes results in a more formal article just to meet the deadline. This is not typical, especially now that we have a specific day each week for publishing reviews. Writing for a newspaper, as opposed to a blog, does impose a certain level of political and linguistic correctness, more so than writing for other media, such as social networks.

A lot has changed since 1987, when Josep Maria Flotats and Joan de Sagarra were embroiled in a heated debate over the actor and director’s disagreement with a review written by the critic. Back then, cultural criticism had a broad reach and enough clout to sink a book, play or concert if it was judged harshly. The public had few sources of information, but those available were considered select, with renowned critics as reference points.

Today, there are many more voices, with professional critics mingling with non-professionals, making it hard for the audience to differentiate between them. Fans and detractors further distort opinions. Despite this, professional criticism remains valuable, as its insightful suggestions can enhance artistic, theatrical, literary or musical works, even if the impact is limited to the professional sphere.

For criticism to be effective, the artistic team needs to be open-minded and considerate of the feedback. An example of the continuing relevance of criticism was seen last year with the premiere of Mel Brooks’ musical The Producers. To avoid any negative feedback, Àngel Llàcer withdrew complimentary tickets for critics on opening night. Providing constructive feedback for those willing to listen and improve is the value of good criticism can still offer. If it achieves this, it means it is still doing a good job.

Criticism requires depth, knowledge and time, which today’s media are unwilling to pay for. Allocating resources to culture is not a priority unless it is commercial, generates economic returns or gains visibility on social networks.

In fact, social networks have killed specialised criticism, giving a voice to influencers, theatre enthusiasts or any citizen. However, there are still knowledgeable voices on social networks. Criticism now takes many new forms. There are significant changes in what is said, and how, when or through which medium it is communicated. Criticism of the performing arts has transformed into opinions, comments, reports and very little actual criticism.

The immediacy of knowing critics’ opinions the day after a premiere has shifted to tweets, TikToks, promotional videos, and so on. On the radio, the space is limited and lacks depth. Some local stations offer performing arts programmes, but on a national scale, everything is more generalist, and specialised content is limited and partial. Too often, the same “celebrities” are discussed, the same type of theatre, with little coverage of circus, family, dance, performance or experimental pieces, and work by young artists. There are few minutes and few specialised professionals.

Most critics and reviewers report and describe what we have seen, and that’s it. Documented critiques, which form the history of the performing arts, are either scarce or non-existent. Our work will not endure, it will not leave a mark on what is done, how it is received or how the sector evolves. Everything is done too quickly and without resources. Truly, there needs to be a genuine commitment to doing it properly.

Music criticism in our country falls short of professionalism. No one earns a living solely from their critiques in newspapers, magazines, radio or television, which sometimes allows for impostors and amateurs to infiltrate these media outlets. Indeed, in some newspapers, their critics are complete musical illiterates.

Although this idea may sound exaggerated, critics from the previous generation wielded much more influence than they do now. However, I’m uncertain if they could consistently “sink” a show or an artist with their sharp pens. Criticism occupied a much larger space back then. Newspapers and magazines allocated it the same prominence as, for instance, a feature or opinion piece. After all, isn’t critique fundamentally an opinion piece, comprising descriptive, evaluative and argumentative elements?

In contemporary times, criticism often resembles a mere record-keeping exercise with limited scope for substantive discourse. The post-analogue era has introduced limitless platforms such as blogs, podcasts and digital publications. However, this accessibility has also unleashed impostors and the illiterate mentioned earlier. Anyone with a keyboard and a screen can publish whatever nonsense they please, and depending on their number of “followers”, it is accepted as gospel truth. These are indeed challenging times for the art of critique.

Last September, theatre criticism became embroiled in a futile controversy. Director Àngel Llàcer attempted to prevent the professional collective from covering The Producers. The scandal was handled with great frivolity by some media outlets and a part of the profession (the Journalists’ Association remained silent). This demonstrates a lack of understanding of critics’ work, symptomatic of a systemic issue.

Cultural journalism has been the least valued genre in editorial offices of all kinds. It goes beyond the crisis of traditional media, reflected in the lack of space for culture, which is crucial for the theatre critic, and in a precariousness that undermines quality. Every humanistic discipline is in decline, and culture in journalism is no exception. There is not a lack of freedom, but rather a lack of space.

A perilous trend equates cultural journalism with marketing. Many preview pieces are crafted to aid promotion, but critical opinions disturb certain powers because they engage in dialogue and contextualisation. This is their role, distinct from terms like shaping or educating, which carry paternalistic connotations.

Within the framework of liberal capitalism, critics provoke ire by analysing the intentions behind discourses and reflecting on the broader perspective, and are disliked because some truths challenge the system. Not everything should be acceptable solely to sell tickets or to construct a narrative on a stage. Criticism holds even greater significance today to safeguard against the commercialisation of media’s notion of culture, preventing it from being diluted in the pursuit of monetisation.

Sports reporting has often been labelled as biased. While there was no permission to stray from journalistic norms, a certain partiality was tolerated in sports reporting, unlike in other areas such as politics.

Today, there’s talk of “footballisation” in politics, where sports news can be supplanted by club-owned media. There is a radicalised and sometimes trivialised discourse, where there is often a competition to see who can be more of a hooligan or more entertaining. Conflict sparks interest; opinions and live coverage dominate and it’s not easy to find a place for interpretative genres and criticism. The model of consumption, production and business has changed. Alongside increased corporate communication and messages of support or opposition driven by sponsorship contracts or advertising exchanges, media disinvestment has been implemented to reduce costs, cease attending events and nurture professionals with distinct perspectives. It’s fashionable to say that football is better watched on television. The relationship between the media and critics, characterised by the collaboration between headlines and journalistic work, born of education and expertise – though potentially biased – has been undermined or dismissed, viewed as compromised by social networks, whose representatives assert equal authority and rights as journalists. Audiences dictate; speed and simplicity are demanded, so much so that some perceive the word ‘critique’ negatively and overlook the journalistic principle of observing closely and narrating from afar, as Leila Guerriero suggests.

In my case, the period of reflection prompted by the pandemic led me and a group of friends to create a literary podcast. Back in early 2020, this was quite an unusual idea. Now, it’s commonplace. One of our concerns was the superficial handling of certain aspects by traditional media.

We often encountered simple summaries and oversimplified banalities in reviews of new translations of authors like Franz Kafka, Djuna Barnes or Catalan writers such as Santiago Rusiñol and Víctor Català. Through our podcast format, we have championed a critical approach rooted in detailed description and nuanced analysis.

We quickly moved away from generic statements like “It’s a weak book given the author’s reputation” or “It’s a book that won’t leave anyone indifferent”. Instead, we refrained from making aesthetic judgments and focused on posing questions. We trust our audience is smart enough to distinguish what’s essential from what’s trivial. At times, it was straightforward to refine our inquiries and determine whether a book’s editing lacked care, depth of thought or, conversely, resulted from meticulous and well-justified research.

Books devoid of intentions, contexts and poetic elements lack substance. We have often confused critique with mere ideological confrontation.

In an era where both younger and older generations seek information through the internet and social media, it may appear that cultural criticism has vanished. Quite the contrary, however. When it comes to television, particularly series, criticism not only persists but remains essential amidst the boom in audiovisual consumption driven by streaming platforms.

The opinions of experts on a series still carry weight for many, a fact we in this field know well. Series have become a frequent topic of discussion among friends and families, and their popularity prompts many readers or listeners to engage with those they consider their guides to fictional worlds.

Social media facilitates this interaction: it’s common to receive messages from followers seeking insights on a series or simply expressing gratitude for a recommendation. While there’s no shortage of insightful series critiques, discussions on television fiction have been coloured by the pervasive polarisation of our times. This often manifests as declarations that a series is either the best ever or the worst imaginable.

The middle ground has dwindled, underscoring the need for commentators who evaluate series with reasoned arguments, sidestepping the fervour or outrage more characteristic of fans than professionals. These are the individuals who won’t change their views simply because a platform sent them a box of Bridgerton-themed biscuits.