[John Kirk]

In this essay, Tim Page reflects on his long career as a classical music critic for the New York Times and Washington Post.  Tim also hosted classical music programs on New York City radio stations, and is currently winding down a professorship with the University of Southern California journalism and music schools.

This short piece covers many of the general challenges of art criticism, while lamenting the gradual decline of the profession in newspaper journalism.  It would be unfair to post the piece in its entirety, as the website might benefit from a bit of additional traffic.  So here is a key paragraph and a link.  Much of the content relates well to our analysis of golf courses.

"Over time, I learned that writing withering reviews – especially of the glib, dismissive “Joe Jones played Mozart last night; Mozart lost” variety – are the easiest to bang out, but a string of insults is hardly criticism. It was much more difficult to put across serious and unhackneyed thoughts about a performance that had been moving and effective. And the middling performances – a baroque trio ensemble in a church basement, say – were most difficult of all. It is genuinely good for the community that such events exist – they are unpretentious, generally well-played and provide a pleasant afternoon for people in the neighborhood – but it is hard to say much about them. Put it this way: If I find a young writer who can give me 750 truly gripping words about yet another performance of “The Four Seasons,” I’ll know that I am in the presence of a gifted critic."--  Tim Page

http://21cm.org/magazine/state-of-the-art-form/2019/09/12/in-memory-of-the-critics-trade/?fbclid=IwAR04VyjJmwHV3ow4SOlD4G9zHlRagCCx-2L9v3J1TOX3rSSPZ6z1glASpDg

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, John - much food for thought & fodder for discussion there.
One thing that comes through in that short snippet, perhaps unconsciously/unintentionally, is the blurring of the line (in the critic's mind) between the quality of the work and the quality of the criticism, i.e. between the inherent value of well-played music, whether a Mozart in Carnegie Hall or a Vivaldi in a church basement, and the critic's ability to write 'grippingly' and with insight on the latter as much as on the former. 
Here's as bland a bit of writing and as 'grip-less' a critique as I've ever posted:
"I played today an under-the-radar Kitchener, Ontario municipal course called Rockway, a par 70 parkland designed by Stanley Thompson in 1935 that drapes seamlessly over rolling, river-side topography and seems to have retained much of its period-correct charm, with width and rumpled fairways and strategic hazards and a variety of contoured greens & engaging surrounds (with sometimes deep & difficult bunkers). I think it one of the best values in southern Ontario/the greater GTA, and the epitome of understated architectural excellence."
Reading that, neither Mr. Page nor anyone else would think me a "gifted critic", and they'd be right. But I'd like to think that I served my purpose, and highlighted & honoured the *work itself*, quite admirably.   
And if I have indeed done so, that would please me very much -- but that's only because I'm not a 'professional critic', and so have little ego attached the quality of *my* work.   

[John Kirk]

Hi Peter,

I was hoping you'd respond.

Your description of Rockway in Ontario is brief yet comprehensive.  I agree that many professional critics tend to insert complex or uncommon language into their work.  I'm not convinced it's egotistical.  The newspaper or magazine is a business, and the critic must display an ability to please its readers and editors.  Perhaps New Yorkers and Washingtonians demand sophistication.  As I've aged, my vocabulary has improved significantly, and sometimes a previously unused word will magically appear in my thoughts, and be the right choice.

In general, golf architecture criticism tends to employ more common language, though at times the opportunity exists for scientific discussion.  Florid descriptions may not resonate with the upscale golf community, though the marketing gurus who promote the courses and resorts seem to believe they do.

There's less detailed analysis and criticism on the website lately.  There are fewer new courses to analyze.  People seem increasingly shy about saying anything negative about a course/club, perhaps out of fear that it will impact their viability.  Like Mr. Page says, coarse, meaningless criticism should be avoided.  But thoughtful analysis can balance the good and bad, and after all, GolfClubAtlas exists to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture.

[Peter Pallotta]

J -
it's not the sophisticated language that I think sometimes works at cross purpose in a critique, it's more the underlying (and perhaps valid) assumption that fashionable readers are very interested in the Mozart in NYC and not interested much at all in the Vivaldi from middle America -- and thus the 'difficulty' that Mr. Page assigns to writing well about "The Four Seasons". But I wonder if that challenge has more to do with the critic's own ambivalence than the audience's, i.e. based more on his own sense that a careful critique of a basement recital is not worth the effort than it is on any inherent difficulty in writing well about the subject.   
On a more gca-specific note: one difference I see between classical music critics and their gca counterparts is that the former tend to review & critique a given performance more 'on its own merits, i.e. without resorting to the comparisons/rankings that gca critics tend to engage in. And if that's not merely my (wrong) impression, there's something interesting in that difference. 
P   

[BCrosby]

A. O. Scott, a movie critic for the New York Times, published a book a couple of years ago with the tongue-in-cheek title 'Better Living Through Criticism'. It is a series on essays on what critics bring to the table. It sounds a bit like Tim Page's book.


I bought the book because I thought it relevant to what we often do here - review golf courses. (Ranking courses is a short hand way of reviewing of a batch of golf courses.) One of Scott's main points is that thoughtful criticism enhances the experience of watching a movie. Ditto for playing a golf course. Criticism, if well done, is not just giving something a thumbs up or down, but ought to make aspects of a golf course (or anything else for that matter) more 'visible'. Maybe better put is that the golf course becomes more 'accessible' to punters like us.


The implication being that the better the golf course, the more there is for the critic to chew on, which makes for more interesting criticism, which then makes for a better understanding of what the architect is trying to do. Good criticism doesn't stand outside a golf course. It takes your hand, leads you into the course and ultimately becomes part of how you see it.


That seems to be Scott's main point - criticism is a sort of second order creative process. That certainly happens to me when I read a thoughtful review of a golf course. Not unlike the way it happens with a thoughtful review of concerto by Brahms or an opera by Mozart. You hear them differently after reading the review.


Bob   

[Greg Hohman]

I don't miss most newspaper arts criticism, "the short echo-walk between the ballyhoo and the hoot" (Nabokov). The most valuable arts criticism is, in my experience (30+ years in the arts), in arts journals and books by scholars. In recent times, the latter are not infrequently artists themselves; either way, their writings blur the hoary old distinction between academia and "praxis." If I had time and resources for a thorough search, I would look for a GCA treatise by one of these folks. After all, the rigid line between "high" and "low" art was breached decades ago. Even if I were to come up empty, I would not rule out anything going forward.

[John Kirk]

J -

But I wonder if that challenge has more to do with the critic's own ambivalence than the audience's, i.e. based more on his own sense that a careful critique of a basement recital is not worth the effort than it is on any inherent difficulty in writing well about the subject.   
On a more gca-specific note: one difference I see between classical music critics and their gca counterparts is that the former tend to review & critique a given performance more 'on its own merits, i.e. without resorting to the comparisons/rankings that gca critics tend to engage in. And if that's not merely my (wrong) impression, there's something interesting in that difference. 
P

Back for at least one more round.

In the referenced article, Page mentions the wide range of assignments he received as a young critic:

"I began as the junior music writer at The New York Times, where I might be sent out to anything from a program of 15th-century Korean court music to an accordion festival, along with plenty of Brahms and Beethoven along the way."

He received his education by reviewing a wide variety of music.  The analogy in golf course criticism would be near-daily reviews of golf courses of varying styles and quality.  It appears classical music reviewers tend to not reduce their opinion into a overall grade of general quality.  Popular music reviews, move reviews and golf course reviews tend to distill their opinion into a number or grade to simplify their opinion.  Have you ever listened to the movie and music reviews the NPR Fresh Air program?  I enjoy professional opinions offered in this manner.  Because they do not reduce their feelings into a number, or even a binary yes/no recommendation, it compels the listener to listen carefully.

Another publication I greatly admire is The Economist magazine.  I stopped subscribing after a fifteen year affiliation, but I consider it a powerful influence on my argumentative style.  Although they are generally considered a conservative, pro-capitalist publication, I always felt I was reading a balanced assessment of the pros and cons of a reported political or economic policy.  Modern journalism is wildly partisan, and it is common to omit weaknesses of a given argument in order to paint a positive picture of the desired outcome.  I just returned from my one visit to Ballyneal this year.  It's still one of my favorite courses.  Are there shortcomings in the design and presentation of the course?  Sure, and a longtime member is likely the most qualified to comment about it.

A. O. Scott, a movie critic for the New York Times, published a book a couple of years ago with the tongue-in-cheek title 'Better Living Through Criticism'. It is a series on essays on what critics bring to the table. It sounds a bit like Tim Page's book.

I bought the book because I thought it relevant to what we often do here - review golf courses. (Ranking courses is a short hand way of reviewing of a batch of golf courses.) One of Scott's main points is that thoughtful criticism enhances the experience of watching a movie. Ditto for playing a golf course. Criticism, if well done, is not just giving something a thumbs up or down, but ought to make aspects of a golf course (or anything else for that matter) more 'visible'. Maybe better put is that the golf course becomes more 'accessible' to punters like us.


The implication being that the better the golf course, the more there is for the critic to chew on, which makes for more interesting criticism, which then makes for a better understanding of what the architect is trying to do. Good criticism doesn't stand outside a golf course. It takes your hand, leads you into the course and ultimately becomes part of how you see it.


That seems to be Scott's main point - criticism is a sort of second order creative process. That certainly happens to me when I read a thoughtful review of a golf course. Not unlike the way it happens with a thoughtful review of concerto by Brahms or an opera by Mozart. You hear them differently after reading the review.


Bob   

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the great comments.  The potential problem I see with your analysis is the wide variety in golfing ability.  Listening to music is not exactly a even playing field, as people with musical training will hear music differently.  On the other hand, the average person listens to an extraordinary amount of music.  Most adults have earned their 10,000 hour level of expertise in the subject.  Golfers vary dramatically in strength and skill.  The greenside play can be well described, but the various obstacles from tee to green will vary in importance according to ability.  We can say generally we like how the obstacles are positioned, that they seem to challenge all abilities in a pleasing manner.

I'm not saying golf architecture criticism lacks expert reviewers.  Tom Doak and Ran Morrissett have years of expertise and experience, and are surely two of the best in the history of the field.  I don't read much golf course stuff these days, but men like Thomas Dunne are erudite and capable writers.  As always, I am encouraging the group to make shrewd observations about the subject matter, and to not fear well reasoned criticisms of their favorite places.   

[John Kirk]

I don't miss most newspaper arts criticism, "the short echo-walk between the ballyhoo and the hoot" (Nabokov). The most valuable arts criticism is, in my experience (30+ years in the arts), in arts journals and books by scholars. In recent times, the latter are not infrequently artists themselves; either way, their writings blur the hoary old distinction between academia and "praxis." If I had time and resources for a thorough search, I would look for a GCA treatise by one of these folks. After all, the rigid line between "high" and "low" art was breached decades ago. Even if I were to come up empty, I would not rule out anything going forward.

Hi Greg,

A couple quick comments.  Perhaps it's your lengthy experience in the arts that requires a scholarly analysis to pique your interest.  In its current form, golf course criticism is much less sophisticated, though it has the potential for great complexity, if we begin to apply the physics of ball flight and roll.  Virtually all of us are judging golf courses by the intuition gained by watching golf shots.

I think there are a few books by architects which discuss golf course theory and construction.  I'm guessing a couple more important ones which emerge in the next decade or so.

My only disagreement with your analysis is the importance of the golfer's opinion.  I submit that it is generally the role of the architect to build the course, and of the players to evaluate it.  The player is the user, and though the architect's opinion is more informed, the user's opinion is more prevalent. 

[Ira Fishman]

I don't miss most newspaper arts criticism, "the short echo-walk between the ballyhoo and the hoot" (Nabokov). The most valuable arts criticism is, in my experience (30+ years in the arts), in arts journals and books by scholars. In recent times, the latter are not infrequently artists themselves; either way, their writings blur the hoary old distinction between academia and "praxis." If I had time and resources for a thorough search, I would look for a GCA treatise by one of these folks. After all, the rigid line between "high" and "low" art was breached decades ago. Even if I were to come up empty, I would not rule out anything going forward.

Hi Greg,

A couple quick comments.  Perhaps it's your lengthy experience in the arts that requires a scholarly analysis to pique your interest.  In its current form, golf course criticism is much less sophisticated, though it has the potential for great complexity, if we begin to apply the physics of ball flight and roll.  Virtually all of us are judging golf courses by the intuition gained by watching golf shots.

I think there are a few books by architects which discuss golf course theory and construction.  I'm guessing a couple more important ones which emerge in the next decade or so.

My only disagreement with your analysis is the importance of the golfer's opinion.  I submit that it is generally the role of the architect to build the course, and of the players to evaluate it.  The player is the user, and though the architect's opinion is more informed, the user's opinion is more prevalent.

John,


For me, the architect with an open mind and a facile pen offers insights into courses that are in between mediocre and great that even a well traveled golfer might not.  I have found to Mr. Page's point that the most difficult criticism to present in any field is when the critic is trying to explain the shortcomings of the reviewed article when his or her general view is positive.  When Ally, Ian A, Mike, Jeff,  Tom and others explain why they do not think a course or hole reaches greatness, they do so with a detailed perspective that enables me to understand the course or hole better even if I might disagree with that perspective.


I do think it is critical (no pun intended) to understand the general philosophy of the writer to put his or her views into context.  Your reference to The Economist is an apt one.  I like even better when the publication has a brief bio of the writer so that his or her philosophy is more accessible (plus the Internet).  The New York Review of Books has short bios for example.  Most of their writers are "liberal", but it is possible to a more granular understanding if I want to do so.


Ira

[Bernie Bell]

I was struck by the parallels between this thought and a long-ago GCA thread that I have bookmarked because of my (perhaps odd) appreciation of Ed Ault.  Some critics forget that it's not about them, it's about the work . . . and if you want to sustain the majestic blooms, you need to tend the roots.

"And the middling performances – a baroque trio ensemble in a church basement, say – were most difficult of all. It is genuinely good for the community that such events exist – they are unpretentious, generally well-played and provide a pleasant afternoon for people in the neighborhood – but it is hard to say much about them."

"It's interesting that we can sit here today and roll our eyes and deride their efforts, and wish for a time when every course built had the cache and artistry of a Cypress Point, or the strategic flexibility of an Augusta, or the character of a Merion, or the brilliance of a Pine Valley, yet in our reach for elevating and stratifying only the highest creative pinnacle of what the game has ever produced, I'm afraid that we might once again become some tiny, self-referential, and ultimately irrelevant minority holding onto the crusty bones of some former time we seemingly all relate to but which few of us have actually lived in."


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35338.msg713256.html#msg713256[/size]  [/color]

[BCrosby]

Pietro said:

"On a more gca-specific note: one difference I see between classical music critics and their gca counterparts is that the former tend to review & critique a given performance more 'on its own merits, i.e. without resorting to the comparisons/rankings that gca critics tend to engage in. And if that's not merely my (wrong) impression, there's something interesting in that difference."

Over the years when I collected classical LP's and CD's (insert joke here) I used a Grove (?) publication that ranked recordings. I found it to be very useful, particularly on pieces I did not know well. (It guided what I bought and no doubt skewed my beloved collection.) So ranking in classical music happens. There are favorite conductors and instrumentalists among the music cognoscenti who publish their findings.

John -

I'm not sure my skills as a golfer affect much the usefulness of good gca criticisms. My inability to feather a faded three iron to a tucked pin is not a precondition to an appreciation of how good a green is or is not.
Good criticism is good because give insights into what is going on architecturally. (To be sure, sometimes "what is going on" is a very mixed bag.) But my ability (or inability) to take advantage of those insights in playing the hole should not bear on the value of those insights.

Bob   

[Sean_A]

"And the middling performances – a baroque trio ensemble in a church basement, say – were most difficult of all. It is genuinely good for the community that such events exist – they are unpretentious, generally well-played and provide a pleasant afternoon for people in the neighborhood – but it is hard to say much about them."

The so-called middling performers in golf are a very difficult lot to come to grips with in terms of discussion.  Every area has their 3rd tier courses of which some may be deserving of more than that sort of attention.  It is even more difficult to discuss when photos are not available. 

I agree that its the finished product which should be scrutinized, but once one sees enough impressive efforts of archies it is difficult to avoid the subject of the people behind the designs.  The trick is not to draw many conclusions based on the archies...even that is difficult. 

The one aspect I always try to keep in mind is that almost all of the course discussed on this board are good on some level.  So its okay to be assertive with opinions.  Its ok to conclude that a course is good, but not one which is interesting enough to warrant a second visit. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()