Standards.

Standards are based primarily on past achievement. They contain an element of the ideal, since we all develop mind’s-ear and mind’s-eye renderings of whatever we are in fact hearing and seeing. We weave what I call tapestries of association, and build structures of meaning formed from the intellectual connections each of us makes. Nonetheless, just as principles are not conjured from a mystic realm but are conclusions drawn from the experience of practice, so are standards grounded in the examples of those who have pushed against the limits of human endeavor, and by so doing have both expanded and defined those limits.  Professionally applicable standards rely on an extensive knowledge of such examples, an appetite for their absorption, and a keen predilection for spotting their potential emulation. In our artform, this applies to works themselves, both old and new, and to all elements of performance and production—singing and acting, conducting and playing, directing and designing. How close we come to meeting, or even surpassing, the standards depends on the talents and commitment of the artists involved. But for those of any authority or influence, the standards must remain the aspiration, and acquaintance with them a sine qua non. Evidence of such acquaintance, at least beyond the most superficial level, is lacking in the Met’s artistic administration.

∼ ∼ ∼

The writing of responsible criticism relies on the application of these same principles and standards. However, when the menu of available objects for criticism comes to be dominated by items that contradict the principles wholly or in large part, and/or repeatedly fail to at least approximate the standards, criticism faces an aporia. Across the red line of principle there is only mutual frustration—where a fundamental premise cannot be agreed upon, no useful discussion can take place. And when standards must be re-adjusted so far as to make shortcomings relative only to one another, and their frame of reference is unrecognizable to so many, they can no longer serve meaningfully as standards. Finally, when a once-vital institution, central to its field of artistic enterprise, not only seems incapable of more than feebly gesturing toward its core mission and shows no sign of correcting its course (on the contrary), it begins to lose its claim on our attention. I’ll return to this topic in a moment. But first, since the present one is criticism:

The New York Times has a new chief music critic! The NYT is another central, once-vital institution that has lost track of itself (see below, in Part Two), and its engagement with classical music has been stripped of rank long since. Nevertheless, its influence—locally, nationally and even globally—is impossible to overestimate, and that is as true in the arts as anywhere else, given the virtual annihilation of daily journalism. The “new” critic, succeeding the retired Anthony Tommasini, is not really new—Zachary Woolfe has been on the premises for a long time, both as critic and as editor. The announcement of his accession was accompanied by the naming of a new Culture Editor, Gilbert Cruz, whose background (TV and movies, New York Magazine‘s digital Vulture, authorship of “a lively guide on how to prepare for the latest Star Wars movie,” etc.) appears to guarantee continuance of the Arts and Leisure section’s standing apportionment of 90% Leisure to 10% Arts, with the former frequently mislabeled as the latter. Naturally, the Times‘ announcement warmly commends “Zack” to us, partly because he’s good at “demystifying” classical music for us, but more importantly because he comes to grips with the “major issues confronting the field,” which are said to be “The continuing obstacles female conductors face; the lack of diversity in major orchestras and on podiums; the ways classical music should change in an era of racial reckoning; and the field’s complex, fraught relationship with Asian and Asian American musicians.” In other words, the “major issues” of classical music and opera aren’t artistic at all, or even economic/existential! They are instead the leading components of the social justice narrative that has come to define this hegemonic newspaper’s identity (though remarkably, one of its key components, LGBTetc. inclusion, goes unmentioned), and if Zack knows what’s good for him, he will continue to push them forward.