Oregon ArtsWatch

ArtsWatch Archive


The Art of Inclusion

July 18, 2017
Culture, Featured, News & Notes

by BRETT CAMPBELL, BOB HICKS, and BARRY JOHNSON

“Reviews now are different kinds of battlefields. Who is writing them is just as important — perhaps more important — than what is being reviewed.”

That’s from an insightful and important story called “Like it or not, we are in the midst of a second arts revolution,” published a few weeks ago by our friend and colleague Chris Jones, chief theater writer for the Chicago Tribune. We thought it said so much about the state of the arts and arts journalism that we immediately posted a link to ArtsWatch’s Facebook page. “Administrators, artists and critics all have to get used to the intensity of amplified opinion, and the widespread desire for empowered involvement, that now surrounds their work.”

A few days later, ArtsWatch found itself engaged on such a battlefield. One of our regular freelance writers, Terry Ross, who’s covered classical music for decades, wrote a review of a June 17 concert by Portland’s Resonance Ensemble that sparked outrage — “amplified opinion.” You can follow the action here.

Resonance Ensemble performed music by Renee Favand-See and welcomed other musicians in its last concert. Photo: Rachel Hadiashar.

To give our readers the chance to express themselves, we have let that battle play out before weighing in ourselves, and in general we’ve been impressed by the passion and thoughtfulness of many of the responses. The comments taught us important lessons about our community’s arts culture. As hard as it was to read them without contributing ourselves, we thought this thread was important beyond anything we could add. Now it’s time to state clearly where we editors stand, and to apologize, appreciate, and explain.

Factual Errors

First, some background. From the beginning, we have especially urged classical music concerts to open their programming beyond the narrow club mentality that often disconnects from today’s larger, more diverse culture. We have received both support and flack for that inclusionary philosophy, and we realize that others don’t share it, including, apparently, the author of the Resonance review.

ArtsWatch reviews of Resonance Ensemble concerts have ranged from positive to something we might characterize as “ecstatic.” Our writers, including Bruce Browne, Jeff Winslow, Matthew Andrews and ArtsWatch’s music editor Brett Campbell (who originally edited Ross’s review), have praised the eclectic programming of the vocal group as well as their music-making.

Ross’s account of …Only in Falling was more mixed and fairly standard, for the most part. He made negative, we would say unduly harsh, judgments about the complexity and craft of one of the songs in the program, one that dealt with the grief of losing a child; he thought one of the sections of the piece he liked best went on too long, though he praised that work extensively, too; he complained about the structure and the “bathos” of another; he quite enjoyed two more.

In the last few sentences of the review, in which Ross discussed an original piece by African-American actor Vin Shambry, things went from “fairly standard” to awful.

“Shambry’s second monologue, however, which opened the concert’s second half and came directly before Ms. Favand-See’s piece, was wildly off-target in its impersonation, in a slow, rhythmic rap style, of a Black Lives Matter screed about life on the ghetto’s mean streets and murderous cops, although blacks were not, to my recollection, specifically mentioned. This small bit of actorly free expression was desperately out of place and unwelcome in this setting,” Ross wrote.

Those sentences contained factual and interpretive errors, as well as opinions that none of the editors agree with. It’s important to distinguish the former from the latter.

Katherine FitzGibbon led Resonance Ensemble’s performance and programmed its concert. Photo: Rachel Hadiashar.

“There were a shocking number of problematic statements in the two sentences Ross wrote about ‘Brother Man’,” FitzGibbon and Shambry wrote. “To call it an ‘impersonation’ implies a kind of caricature or something inauthentic, which follows in the long tradition of minstrelsy and of rendering black performances as inferior to white performances. Vin’s piece was a genuine statement of his own perspective, his daily perspective which is informed by being a man of color living in our predominantly white city and in this time in the United States. Ross cannot understand Vin’s perspective – no one can fully understand another person’s perspective – so to label it as an “impersonation” devalues it and sets it aside.

“Second, Vin’s sung performance had nothing to do with ‘rap style.’ Rap incorporates ‘rhyme, rhythmic speech, and street vernacular’ (Keyes 2004:1). It is astounding that Ross would lump this performance into the category of rap.

“Third, this also had nothing to do with Black Lives Matter, which is an entire movement with a specific set of goals. Again, ‘Brother Man’ expressed Vin’s personal feelings and his experience of daily life.

“Fourth, Ross refers to the ‘ghetto’s mean streets’ and ‘murderous cops,’ neither of which stereotypes figured whatsoever in Vin’s piece.

“Fifth, Ross writes that ‘blacks were not, to my recollection, specifically mentioned.’ Ross’s tone when he refers to ‘blacks’ is not only off-putting but suggests that the experience of all African-Americans, Africans, and African-Caribbeans are the same (and linked with the ‘ghetto’ and ‘mean streets’). And if ‘blacks’ were not specifically mentioned (in point of fact, there is a single mention of ‘men of color’ in the piece), then why did he conclude that the piece was in the manner of a Black Lives Matter ‘screed’?”

Though we couldn’t have known that Ross’s story contained these errors without having seen the show ourselves, we accept responsibility for his words published on our site, we regret publishing them, and we apologize for those errors, and for their offense to the artists involved. Had we known they were erroneous, we wouldn’t have published them. We are grateful to Katherine FitzGibbon and and Vin Shambry for pointing them out and for responding in such a thoughtful and measured manner.

Unwelcome Attitude

As distressing as these errors were, though, what was more troubling to FitzGibbon, and to us, was the attitude toward art and programming revealed in the review.

“Sixth, and most devastatingly,” FitzGibbon and Shambry point to this sentence in the review: “‘This small bit of actorly free expression was desperately out of place and unwelcome in this setting.’ This statement troubled and angered us such that we feel the need to affirm how welcome Vin’s perspective was and is, in the world of classical music and whatsoever. We affirm that concert and theater performances are richer and deeper when they are inclusive of many points of view, both aesthetically and psychologically. (Ross also criticized other styles that were not classically choral, as in his remarks about the inclusion of singer-songwriter Nikole Potulsky, an artist with a national reputation who is just coming off a sold-out solo show in Portland). It seems that Ross has a narrow understanding of what ‘belongs’ on a classical music concert, and indeed, an understanding that does not reflect the fundamental mission of Resonance Ensemble, one of collaboration with many styles, art forms, and communities. We believe that art can provoke and move its listeners. Clearly, Mr. Ross felt provoked by and uncomfortable with the inclusion of Vin’s piece, and we ask him to consider why it did not feel ‘welcome.’”

Part of the problem, which FitzGibbon and Shambry identify, is the stance of the critic. We see this once-common formalist critical stance supporting the most conservative cultural values: the few against the many, the white against the black, the rich against the poor, the known against the unknown, the old against the new. It’s an approach that takes a lofty view of the history of the art form, upholding the standards of past masters and maintaining that anything new or unorthodox or in unexpected combination faces a mighty challenge to gain entry into the pantheon, and will be allowed in only reluctantly, once it’s proven its worth.

Nikole Potulsky performed at “…Only in Falling.” Photo: Rachel Hadiashar.

There is value in stressing the importance of tradition, but in doing so, formalist critics often undervalue the new art and experimental approaches that are forming under their noses. Although nearly all of our writers have ample grounding in the disciplines they write about, we wouldn’t call any of them formalists. They don’t spend time thinking, “Three stars or four stars,” or “B or B-.” Instead they think about how things work, what they say, what they tell us about … us.

At ArtsWatch, we don’t believe that our writers are priests who can offer absolution or gods, sitting in judgment. We are writers attempting to understand a very difficult subject—art—and then reporting back to our readers what we think we have understood. We know that our cognitive apparatus can help, that our previous experience can help, but that ultimately what makes art interesting is that it refuses to be pinned down like a dead butterfly in a taxonomist’s cabinet, neatly named and categorized and valued. That should be humbling to us, especially when we encounter what we don’t understand or react negatively to.

Although many readers think of the stories we write as reviews, we don’t really think of our writers as “reviewers.” We are writers whose subjects will be drawn from the work performed. We are under no obligation to say something about everything that is performed. We are obliged to do enough research to justify what we write. Our most important role is helping our readers establish the context for certain performances—in music, in the life of the performers, in the culture.

The real failure of those two sentences was that they didn’t provide sufficient context: What was Resonance Ensemble attempting to do with its programming decisions? Although it’s possible to argue that the group failed in one regard or another, that’s not only what the essay argued. It basically said that certain mixtures of music just shouldn’t be performed together, as a formal matter. Resonance never billed its show as a “classical music” concert. The program offered the kind of cultural and stylistic diversity that ArtsWatch writers have strongly advocated for since the site began.

Vin Shambry

While we recognize that Ross isn’t alone in his view of what constitutes a proper concert, we believe the reviewer shouldn’t play performance cop. As some cops do, Ross pulled over the performer who didn’t perform what he wanted him to, and then threw him in the slammer. We believe that this is not our role. Especially not in white Portland in the whitest of its art forms. We are looking for ways forward from the everyday bigotry that poisons us, from the racist past that clings to us, from the economic system in which it is entangled.

We keep coming back to the word “unwelcome.” We don’t think Ross meant it quite like many of us are reading it. He might have simply meant “inappropriate.” But at ArtsWatch we “welcome” every cultural expression. Every honest attempt to create something new from the cultural and personal material at hand is of interest to us. We may not understand it, we may misinterpret it, we may think it’s lacking in one regard or another: But we also think enough of it to bring attention to it.

Inclusionary Philosophy

In this case, one writer expressed a view contrary to the inclusionary approach to concerts that ArtsWatch has long propounded. If we disagreed with his apparent philosophy so strongly when we first received his review, then why did we publish it? Actually, that very difference in philosophy is what led us to avoid editing out a point of view that differs from our own.

Music reviewers and their readers frequently disagree about what they’ve heard, and that disagreement can actually be instructive—for both reviewer and reader. At ArtsWatch, this principle of independence for the writer is really important. We don’t have a uniform house voice or dogma. We’re not a Fox ‘News,’ imposing a party line. We believe in freedom of expression on our virtual pages, and we, like most artists, know that can make many uncomfortable. We disagree with a lot of what we edit, but it doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t allow it to be published. We can hardly advocate inclusion of challenging ideas in a Resonance Ensemble concert while at the same time denying that same openness to diverse ideas on our own site. That would turn ArtsWatch into a mere hug box where only certain ideas are permitted, and deny us the opportunity to see those views, consider them, debate them, confront them. Anyone who wants to see the result of living only in a bubble where certain ideas are permitted is invited to consider the election results that surprised so many last November.

However, in that same spirit of free expression, we also reserve the right to disagree with opinions expressed on our site. We feel so strongly that the attitude toward artistic diversity displayed in the review, and particularly the language in which that attitude was expressed, contradicts our bedrock values that we feel compelled to do so now.

As expressed in this review, Ross’s apparent critical opinion is that such diversity in concerts is inherently unwelcome. Those added performances detracted from the show for him. They wouldn’t detract from it for us, but there are other things we might find unwelcome. For example, two of us just attended a performance that was announced as a concert but wound up being mostly a lecture demo. That detracted from the experience for some of us. Ross apparently had a similar view of this non-classical programming in a concert that contained classical music. Though we believe it’s honestly held, we heartily disagree with this notion, and we’ll debate and even denounce it here — but we won’t censor it. One writer may believe that, but ArtsWatch as an institution never has and never will.

But while we wouldn’t censor Ross’s opinion, we have learned, thanks to the response to his story from our readers (especially Mary McDonald-Lewis’s analysis, in the comment thread beneath the review) that the charged way he expressed those opinions could indeed make the artists involved feel unwelcome in arts settings. We should been more sensitive to that possibility, and shouldn’t have allowed that language in the published version. We apologize to the artists involved for not doing so. We’re still learning to adapt to the new world Jones discusses.

Vin Shambry is one of the city’s very best actors, and the idea that his contribution would be “unwelcome” at any arts event is completely wrong. We apologize directly and profusely to him.

With …Only in Falling, Resonance Ensemble has bravely attempted to break down the barriers that compartmentalize people and music in our culture. We owe you our thanks for emphasizing that social role in your artmaking, and we apologize for causing anyone connected with the show, beginning with Vin Shambry of course, distress of any kind. Thank you for responding as you did. We are keen to make amends by embracing our role in the community with the awareness you have helped us develop.

For example, we might challenge our writers to provide examples of similarly inclined art that works better than a piece they criticize. If you don’t like Shambry’s piece, for example, how about this searing performance by Kendrick Lamar at the 2016 Grammy awards?

We have offered Terry Ross the opportunity to respond to this essay, and to the comments made on his original review. He writes: “I agree with my editors that the arts are not a battlefield and that my review gave the impression that I think they are. This was not my intention. I’m also sorry that my language was unduly harsh. I welcome diversity of expression and respect the work of artists of all kinds.”

What has been the outcome of all this “amplification”? While we regret the original errors of judgment, we also think the ensuing dialogue shows the value of including diverse ideas — both in arts performances, and in arts journalism. ArtsWatch gave Ross the opportunity to express his attitude toward concerts, and then members of the Portland arts community stepped up to make the case for why that position is wrongheaded, especially in the 21st century.

We’re seeing, played out here in the pages of ArtsWatch, the revolution Chris Jones wrote about in action — the new “empowered involvement” pushing back against the old critical priesthood. And while we are truly sorry about the dismay the review stirred up, we also understand that the response to it is making many, including us, more aware of the intensity of the legitimate fury simmering in our community. As the comments revealed, many are rightfully angry, not just about this review, but also about the arts world’s (including arts journalism’s) long failure to make everyone welcome — a serious and continuing problem. The story’s regrettable deficiencies notwithstanding, we believe that making those conflicting attitudes, that anger, that ongoing cultural transformation visible is what journalism is supposed to do. We thank our readers for making that happen this time through their comments.

Going forward, we pledge to continue to seek out art and journalism that share our core belief in inclusion, and to do our best to push against the barriers to it that remain in Oregon arts and beyond. Let’s start right now. Readers, what do you think? Please leave your constructive comments below.

Videos by Alan Niven.

Oregon ArtsWatch Archives