Stay Classical, Spectator

This column is in defense of what I've been doing for these past four years-arts criticism at a college paper.

My beat has generally been the arts and has included reviews of films, art, music, and books. More specifically, I've been writing the classical music and opera criticism for this paper for the past four years. If the dearth of attention given to classical music this semester is any indication, it would seem that classical music coverage is being phased out of the Spectator. This is a shame because classical music is thriving on campus.

This year especially, Columbia is increasingly at the center of the New York classical music scene. The Miller Theater has given us a particularly strong season and has made it into the mainstream press on several occasions, including the Oberlin Conservatory of Music's performance of Olga Neuwirth's Lost Highway and its programs of works by Frank Zappa and Edgar Varèse. Additionally, Columbia retains good relations with Juilliard and the Manhattan School of Music. The CU Arts Initiative and Music Humanities have helped out by bringing the New York City Opera to campus. The Spectator should stop underestimating its readers and commit itself to covering more of these and other classical events throughout the city.

I've come under attack from editors for writing articles directed toward a select audience about topics that don't really interest the rest of the Columbia community. But I'd like to think that my editors are simply underestimating my classmates. I think everyone would benefit from thinking seriously about arts criticism in general and the task of the critic.

A critic must not only be able to tell his reader whether or not to see performance "X," but a reviewer must also convince the reader that performance "X" is worth thinking about and why. I'm not recommending that critics keep their own subjective judgments in check, but rather, I suggest that they realize that praise and blame are only two elements of a good review.

I suspect that many, like myself, who choose to contribute to the arts pages do so out a deep love for the subjects they write about and out of the conviction that art satisfies a deep and existential craving. As such, I'd like to think that many are compelled to write about the arts out of more than an indulgent desire to flaunt their knowledge. Rather, I hope that many arts critics use writing as an opportunity to apply their deep love and respect for art, to try and communicate that conviction to others, and, at the same time, to refine their own understanding of what art means to them.

Criticism at a college paper-and indeed everywhere-should be more than a simple thumbs-up or a one-to-five star-review. It should strive to elucidate and analyze. It should argue the case for art. Art is meaningful to us. This is both the premise of all good criticism and a belief that criticism needs to constantly reaffirm in order to stay alive and remain relevant. I hope that future arts journalists at the Spectator will understand that the arts page is more than a forum to air their own opinions and judgments. I hope that they realize that in their writing, they have a responsibility to communicate to their readers the worth of a particular work of art and of art in general. This is, and ought to be, the goal of all great criticism.