A request of critics and arts organizations
It’s been awhile since I’ve written anything, largely because I was on a performance contract out of town while working other jobs at the same time and, well, my brain can only go in so many directions.
But I never stop thinking about arts marketing or the shape of the world of art as a business and impactful part of our society. And today I have something very simple I would like to ask of 1) Critics and 2) Arts organizations in the descriptions of their own work.
Dispense with the prohibitively, often hyperbolic, definitive statements.
But Meghan, you say, we must be strong and forceful in our belief about what we do. Critics shouldn’t beat around the bush. They should state emphatically what they thought of the piece. Arts organizations shouldn’t retreat into the background; we should use definitive statements to show the public how good we are at what we do.
True. But get out your thesaurus and think about your wording.
The type of statements I’m talking about frequently feature one or both of two words:
Best. Only. (And other words that mean best or only.)
I recently read a review that referred to someone as “The finest [role] ever.” Another, of a different production and in a different publication, said “No other company has done [something several other companies have done].” I have seen a company describe itself as “the only company in the country that [does something many other companies do]”
The fact is it’s lazy. Have you seen literally everything? Are you aware of literally everything? No. Therefore you have no right to make statements that glorify certain works of art or arts organizations ahead of others. Praise it up and down for its merits, but stop with the comparisons. While they are meant to evoke positive responses, the reaction, more often than not, is contradictory.
Critics should feel free to use descriptive, emphatic words in their writing, as should marketers. But describing something as the best immediately invites comparison from your audience. Stating that something is the only immediately discredits you, unless you are absolutely certain.
The use of these terms to review work or market arts organizations is not based on customer reviews or any aggregated source, but on one person’s opinion. And even products that are highly rated online or ranked “best” in Consumer Reports and the like have detractors, or people for whom the product didn’t work.
The fact is, we live in a world of cynics. Terms like “best” only drive expectations to heights you can’t control. Terms like “only,” while making you seem exclusive, drive people to want to prove you wrong. As a marketer, you want a statement that will provoke the reader to spend their energy learning more about what you’re offering. “Best” and “Only” take their eyes off of the ball.
“One of”
Critics and marketers: If you want to use comparative language like “best” or “only” then I beg of you, use the precious words “one of” in front of them. Instantly you communicate excellence and heighten expectations, but you do it without painting yourself into a corner. The fact is, to some you may be the best, but to some you may be the worst. Art is fiercely subjective. That’s the point.
And while we’re at it…
A critic’s opinion is that of one, sometimes under-educated individual, which has had the role of critics up for debate. Critics can enhance their tenuous position in the journalism world by provoking discussion and helping audience members think about how to discuss works of art and evaluate them for themselves. The point is, prospective audience members are relying less and less on reviews, particularly because fewer people are seeing them.
And if I’m reading a description of your show or event and you tell me it’s the “best,” why should I believe you? It’s your thing. Of course you like it. Help me understand the experience. Make me believe that I should come and decide for myself.
The Bottom Line
There is no best. There is no only. And in the world we live in, those statements hold less weight than ever before.
