I've been trying to wrap my brain around the idea of losing not just one, but potentially both our daily newspapers here in Seattle. 

No, there is no news out there that the Seattle Times is closing shop (plenty of news out there that the Seattle P-I soon will be), but it goes without saying that unless daily newspapers, including the Times, fundamentally change the way in which they do business, they will be no more profitable than the last great buggy-whip manufacturer.

In the arts, there have been numerous stories of the demise of the newspaper, mostly surrounding the demise of the newspaper critic, the person actually writing the article.  From the Denver Post:

DEATH OF CRITICISM?  CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

by John Moore, Denver Post theatre critic

Talk about strange bedfellows: Politicians (with something to hide) . . . those who perceive a left-wing media bias . . . and the theater community.

Oddly, the gradual demise of the print media is making each of them all kinds of giddy.

The first two make sense: Fewer journalists means fewer watchdogs. And we'll never convince the conspiracy theorists that declining circulation has more to do with the economy than ideology.

But the theater community?

The featured discussion at the Colorado New Play Summit took a strange turn Feb. 14 when a panel of national industry leaders was asked about what role critics should play in the development of new plays. That turned into a grave-stomping.

"Newspapers are fading away, and the critics don't know where they are headed next," said Polly Carl of the Playwrights Center in Minneapolis. In fact, she added, "There really can't even be a conversation about criticism right now, period, until there are no more newspapers."

Janice Paran of the Sundance Institute in Utah agreed that "the power of the print media is eroding fast," and added, "the blogging community has really started to become an important part of the conversation." Fair enough.

John Eisner of New York's Lark Play Development looked forward to the day when audience feedback replaces critics as we know them.

Todd London of New Dramatists was more blissfully blunt: "The truth is that print media is going away, and in almost every city, word of mouth now really rules the day," he said.

Critics have lost a great deal of influence, to be sure. London believes the sole remaining American theater critic with any kind of real power is the New York Times' controversial Charles Isherwood. And London challenged the nation's heartland artistic directors to strip him of it.

"The problem is not in New York so much as in the rest of the country, which still chooses plays based on the review that they get in The New York Times," he said. "We are never going to educate the critics. We have to educate ourselves."

All of which had me thinking about how shortsighted all of this forward-thinking was into a world without critics.

Most critics do far more than review plays. We write advances. We report news. We provide online resources that benefit the entire community. Online, The Denver Post provides convenient and comprehensive listings, by company or opening date. We offer play summaries and slide shows for every currently running show. We post video podcasts and let you read samples of unfamiliar new plays.

And yes, we review. We champion productions you never knew were happening, and we may steer you away from a waste of your money. Love us or hate us, we bring the theater community to you. We are a vital link. If the critics go away, who's going to do all of that?

Well, area director Christy Montour-Larson has an idea.

"Before there were newspapers, there were critics," she said. "After all, what was Aristotle? A critic. So after newspapers, there's going to be something else. We just don't know what that's going to be yet."

In a previous blog, I asked, without any baggage whatsoever, what the job of a critic is.  This particular critic, John Moore, talks about advocacy, publicity, and as a watchdog on the arts industry.  His role is as a part consumer advocate and part industry advocate.  He believes, I infer, that he is on the center of the center of the dividing line between theatergoers and the organizations that provide theater, advocating for both, defending both.  And that's a fair statement.  I think most critics, save those in the commercial market of New York, believe that they perform those functions.

A local critic tried to sum it up in her response to the blog: 

"I get paid by an editor for writing something the editor thinks is worthwhile for the readership. Readership is audience. They want some idea of whether "x" thing is going to be something they want to spend their hard earned money on. And in theater's case, that can be a LOT of hard earned money, even though it doesn't cover the whole cost of the seat!

"...I try to stay away from what 'should' be on stage. I know I don't always succeed, that I sometimes stray into the 'the director coulda done this' territory. I don't think that's really my job, though. Mostly, I think it's my job to tell a reader what he or she might experience if he or she goes. I'll give 'em a taste, to decide which productions they think will give them the most enjoyment - of whatever kind of productions they like to see. I also think it's my job to keep as much suspense as possible, so that the enjoyment of surprise is not lost. I love to be surprised in theater."

Also fair statements, and for the full text, please go look at the comment on the blog from November 14, 2008.

But as we move into a newspaperless future in Seattle, without the Times or P-I -- is there anyone whose office is not at 1120 John Street who believes that just because the P-I might fold, the Times will gain? -- we in the arts have to consider what that means for the local arts scene. 

After all, speaking for 90% of the 162 organizations identified by Theater Puget Sound, we don't have big advertising or marketing budgets that can run long campaigns of radio, let alone television. We have always relied on the kindness of strangers, as Tennessee Williams would have said.  We rely on critics - sometimes better suited as critics rather than reporters - to provide column inches of free publicity to the play we're producing.

So in a potentially paperless local society, what do you foresee as the evolution of theatre critics?

Blog criticism?  The West Seattle Blog, for instance reports on the news of West Seattle better than any outlet right now.  Will they add to their repertoire a forum to talk about the latest West Seattle arts offering, not only at ArtsWest, but at other venues?

Collaborations?  Will arts organizations in Seattle, ones that have been personally collegial (we like you) but organizationally leery (but we don't trust you), somehow put together cooperative ventures that put the whole arts community ahead of any one organization?  Not necessarily marketing ventures, either, but production collaborations, fundraising teams, and full list sharing?

Local print media?  Will the absence of the two local newspapers lead to reliance on local newspapers -- the Everett Herald, Tacoma News-Tribune, West Seattle Herald, etc.?  Or print media that serves targeted populations -- the Seattle Gay News, Seattle's Child, Jewish Transcript, UW Daily, etc.?  Will the alternative free weekly newspapers choose to report on the whole arts community, at least in part because of the more than $1 billion dollars of positive economic impact on the region brought about by the arts (that's not my figure, that's ArtsFund's figure, and it's backed up by solid research)?

Non-print media?  Will KUOW, KPLU, or any of the commercial radio stations choose to fill the niche left behind by the paucity of critics?  Will any local television news program cover stories about arts organizations in Seattle?

You?  Will you take it upon yourself to talk, email, text, phone, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, or telepathically message information on the latest play you've seen produced by ArtsWest or other organzations?

I don't know the answer, of course.  I know that these are the questions I have.  What do you think?

-- Alan Harrison, Executive Director
February 25, 2009