Lloyd Schwartz, response
The Boston Phoenix critic has sent a response to the criticism of his role at the Tanglewood Music Center.
Given that so much relevant information I willingly supplied to the Exhibitionist blog was inexplicaly absent from the public post, I'm not surprised that there has been so much confusion and controversy, although the level of personal hostility surprised even me. At least, let me try to set the record straight:
First of all, I was paid only a very small (make that VERY small) token honorarium to cover my time and expenses driving back and forth from Boston to Tanglewood and working with six young composers who are studying with the composer-in-residence at the Tanglewood Music Center (the separate educational branch of the Boston Symphony Orchestra) this summer. The composer-in-residence, whom I had never met before and never reviewed, assigned these students to each write a musical setting for one of my poems. The idea was to have these students working on--and with--a single living poet. Since I am both a poet and creative writing teacher and someone knowledgeable about music, it was fortuitous that I was the poet chosen. It was a very good fit. I would spend a total of six days working with the six composers, six student singers, and six student pianists, going over with them their short settings of my poems. In fact, I've already spent two extra days with them with no further remuneration because they were so talented and the project was so productive and moving. Unlike what many people have assumed after reading the Exhibitionist, these settings of my poems are not going to be played by the Boston Symphony Orchestra; there is no recording contract; and there are no residuals. I was not paid for the use of my poems.
I've known about this appointment since January. It was not a secret. I have been completely forthright about it. I disclosed it publicly myself, in a blog I was invited to write by The Best American Poetry, who thought it would be particularly interesting for other poets to read about this experience. None of this would have been public knowledge if I hadn't mentioned it myself. As for my favoring the BSO, I wonder if anyone responding to the blog has bothered to read my reviews of the Boston Symphony Orchestra during the last few months, let alone compared them to what I've written about the BSO in the past 30 years? I've always been honest in my reviews and have always said, sometimes indiscreetly, what I think. Anyone who reads my reviews knows this. And I will continue to say what I think as long as I write.
I'm surprised that some people think that artists shouldn't write criticism. Hasn't some of the most valuable criticism in the history of criticism been by other artists, poets, musicians, who may or may not have something personal at stake? Of course I try to be objective, but is "absolute objectivity" really possible under any circumstances? I'm not putting myself in the same league as Berlioz, Debussy, Eugenio Montale, or Virgil Thomson, but I think I'm at least in the same category. One blogger, a respected critic himself, mentions that I'm likely to give better reviews to the BSO because I will surely hope for another opportunity to work for that organization. I wonder what that opportunity--given that only one has come up in the 30-plus years of my reviewing them--might possibly be?
By the way, to the blogger who reported that I submitted my own work for consideration for the Pulitzer Prize, that is categorically untrue (although anyone is allowed to submit his or her own work). My work was nominated , as is most journalistic work, by the editors of the newspaper I write for. I would like to receive (though I don't expect) an apology for this complete fabrication.
It's difficult to sum up all my reactions to the Exhibitionist blog. Can this be thorough or serious reporting when readers are deprived of facts I unhesitatingly supplied and are misled by those omissions? Still, I can't believe that there is anything wrong with anyone, let alone a teacher and artist who also happens to be a critic, taking part in a worthy educational enterprise such as this one, a modest effort to further the education of a handful of young classical musicians. It's a sad state of affairs that anyone thinks this service to a new generation of composers and musicians compromises my standing as a critic.
Like I said, the proof of Mr. Schwartz's critical integrity will be in the reviews he writes of the BSO from this moment forward. There is, however, a serious argument to be made that, from now on, he should recuse himself from reviewing the BSO. If he does that and thereby deprives the public of a Pulitzer-Prize-winning critic's opinion of the BSO's performances, music criticism in greater Boston will have suffered.
So, damned if he does (continue to write reviews of the BSO that'll inevitably considered tainted) and damned if he doesn't (silence on the BSO from a respected critic).
Mr. Schwartz made a bad, albeit well-intentioned, decision.
>There is, however, a serious argument to be made that, from now on, he should recuse himself from reviewing the BSO.
What argument is that? That any financial dealings, no matter how minor and indirect, exclude one from writing criticism about an arts operation? Reminds me of an old controversy where Lloyd Schwartz was refused tickets to an operation's performances because he'd said just too many bad things about them. They obviously hoped for silence. The goal is the same here.
During the two evening performances of Elliott Carter that we attended Lloyd Schwartz was a visible and moving presence. He was embedded into the event at a level that far exceeded the role that has now resulted in unfortunate and misplaced judgement.
He was invited to bring something special to the rare event and typically he was most generous in procviding that service. This entailed working with young composers and performers setting to music one of his poems. That Lloyd is a distinguished poet as well as music critic quite obviously made him an excelent choice for this project. It seems that he was apporpriate on every level.
The notion that he is now compromised by having taken a stipend from the BSO which he has covered for three decades is insulting and absurd.
The more so when Peter Plagens, himself an artist and critic, has jumped into the discourse. More than anyone Plagens should have been more sensitive to the nature of the task and its modest honorarium. One hardly concludes that the BSO has bought off one of the nation's foremost music critics for thirty pieces of silver. In this instance more like gas money and a per diem.
The aspect of switiching sides is absolutely the norm in the field of critical thinking. How many critics were initially practioners of their specialty. By having labored in the studio, as has Plagens, or Schawartz, myself and others, there are unique insights.
Most of us who are artists/ critics are servants of two masters.One aspect flourishes to the cost of the other, Rather like lobsters with one large dominant claw and another lesser one. But however lopsided they are joined to one body or sensibility. One works with and informs the other. They cannot be separated. Lloyd is the rarest of examples of one who has prospered as both an artist and as a critic.
It was absolutely brilliant that the BSO would seek such an individual to mentor during the Tanglewood Festival. The notion is to be inclusive rather than exclusive. If this is the test case for public opinon among artists and critics let us hope that it encourages more such collaborations.
Next week I am scheduled to meet with and mentor a group of interns at Mass MoCA. Previously I had interacted with them when they came to visit a gallery program that I am involved with. We had a lively meeting and I was approached by one of the interns about further contact. I am delighted to have this opportunity to walk them through an exhibition and discuss the critical process of looking at the work.
There is no honorarium involved. I am not looking for a job at Mass MoCA. But if, like Schwarz, they offered a small stipend, it would be absurd to conclude that this would in any way compromise my reviews of their exhibitions.
Best
Charles Giuliano
Publisher/ Editor
Berkshire Fine Arts.com
Yikes! Here I was willing to forgive Schwartz his misstep, but Giuliano's brazen schmoozing made me freeze up instead. I can buy that Schwartz's writing on the BSO won't be influenced by this seemingly microscopic honorarium (which was apparently so very small one wonders why he didn't just forgo it). But I'm still curious as to Schwartz's argument against the general rule involved. It's telling that he doesn't try to formulate such an argument - instead he cites various examples of famous artists who also worked as critics. It would be interesting, however, to know if any of them routinely covered an organization which also employed them, and if so, what their justification was. Clearly "trust me" is, to be blunt, all Schwartz has to offer, along with how his feelings have been hurt. I'm almost amused by this. I get the impression, in fact, that Schwartz probably understands the general rule is in place to guard against the untrustworthy, not the trustworthy, but he feels that the rule shouldn't apply to him, because, well, because he's trustworthy, like Berlioz and Debussy, or something like that. Oh, well.
At the same time, it's worth noting that, as other commenters have pointed out, much, much larger sums of money impact local coverage of the BSO. Lloyd Schwartz's honorarium is a sideshow of a sideshow in this regard, and Geoff Edgers, of all people, who seems to investigate some rumors in the arts community but not others, might ponder that fact, too.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
browse this blog
by categoryrelated links
INside Boston.com