TimeOut Chicago Chatroom Critic: Don Hall (Extended Version)

(author's note: the first four paragraphs of this post are directly syndicated from my blog "Without Preface," which I write for my "Reviewing the Arts" class at Columbia College Chicago. The post is not 517 words, so I will be expounding on it for those who read 517 Words. Also, if you have or haven't noticed, this blog will not be updated on Sundays, as a rule.)

Don Hall is a theater blogger and sole contributor to the blog "An Angry White Guy in Chicago." In the TimeOut Chicago piece "Critical Condition," Hall represents one of the critics who does not write either professionally or in print. His comments about his style of critique reflect that he is familiar and comfortable with the ins and outs of criticism on the internet.

Hall believes that anyone can be a critic, although not necessarily a good critic. He says that critics must have both knowledge and passion for what they criticize. He adds that one must be as "sharp and precise as what you're slamming," meaning that not all art is worth the same amount of research. Many times, this knowledge can come from the passion for the subject. As he says, "if you're passionate about theater, you'll likely educate yourself about it." No doubt that being an amateur blogger, his passion for the subject is what fuels his work. It is the amateurs like him who can truly say that "money has little to do with this thing we do."

Hall also agrees with most of the other critics that self-awareness is necessary to being a good critic, and knowing personal prejudices is necessary for a good critique. Knowing the prejudices and opinions of others is likewise necessary for knowing what critics one would prefer to follow. Hall sees criticism, from both the reader and writer viewpoint, as heavily based on knowing prejudices. As a internet critic, he is familiar with the instant anonymous criticism he receives on his own critiques and embraces it, using replying to negative comments in order to sharpen his own views.

Hall also takes somewhat of an anti-establishment stance, saying courage is only needed when criticizing the powerful (implying that their response could be worse than that of his commenters). He also sees distrust for megacorporations as the reason many turn to user reviews rather than print critiques. Independent criticism is a part of his passion for the art of critique.

Hall's stance is very relatable to anyone who spends a good amount of time on the internet. On-line media brings an amount of freedom, opportunity, and reader interaction that is severely decreased in typical print and other traditional media. Newpapers, radio, and television all understand this and are constantly pointing their readers and viewers to their websites or mobile apps. Watch any television show and you will see at least one reference to the network's website before the show ends. Read any columnist and you will see the URL for his blog at the end. When I interned with the promotions team at Clear Channel here in Chicago, a major focus was pointing the listener to the website. There is no doubt that media is slowly funneling into the web.

However, there is also good reason to be skeptical of internet media (and specifically criticism). Check out Jim DeRogatis' review of the Who's performance last night and then read some of the comments. How many commenters out of the dozens propose any kind of rational, logical, fact-supported analysis? You can probably count them on one hand. As far as independence and opportunity, how many of the really great bloggers, podcasts, or web shows are not supported by the traditional media in some way. Sure, there are quite a few, but would they have been equally successful climbing in the traditional industry as many have done before?

The internet is something big and wonderful and terrible, and no doubt it is and will be changing culture for awhile. After the dust settles, though, will we just be back where we started?