These days, everyone is a critic. Scrolling for just five minutes on social media, I encounter multiple amateur critics — typically men in baseball caps behind microphones — sharing their commentary on new and old music, ranging from “Hamilton” to Sabrina Carpenter’s deluxe drop. In an age of abundant cultural commentary, when seemingly expert, or at least entertaining, opinions threaten to drown out verified voices, we need traditional arts criticism now more than ever.
But The New York Times might disagree. On July 15, the national daily newspaper reassigned four of its prominent arts critics: Margaret Lyons (television), Jon Pareles (music), Jesse Green (theater) and Zachary Woolfe (classical music). In an internal memo Variety obtained, culture editor Sia Michel wrote that the publication would assign critics “new roles” and search for new writers to take up their posts and pens. Michel added that “readers are hungry for trusted guides to help them make sense of this complicated landscape, not only through traditional reviews but also with essays, new story forms, videos.” Like many traditional critics of our time, these writers are still working to provide the public with thoughtful art reviews, but they are forced to compete against an ever-growing pool of digital voices with devoted fans. Quality research, drafting and editing just can’t keep up with the pace — or with the widespread engagement — of visual content.
Although not yet implemented, this realignment likely entails a shift toward short-form content that captures the consumers’ attention and demands very little intellectual engagement, replicating the formulaic production of digital creators who have seen growing success since 2020. Traditional media companies are diving into social media-based journalism, with TikToks, Instagram reels and other short-form digital content published alongside standard articles.
The Times’ decision to plunge into this swipeable abyss is shocking and potentially short-sighted. Although it opens doors for younger journalists by establishing new positions and moving seasoned writers to alternate beats, it offers only a small crack of light for aspiring professionals, no longer promising a career of quality storytelling but instead one of clickbaiting. While videos, essays and other new digital story forms provide opportunities, these are not necessarily for journalists: Instead, these require a different set of skills and interests altogether.
Many college-aged consumers may welcome this decision as more than 40% of Generation Z gets its news from social media. The Times’ turn toward “new story forms” could be exciting and valuable, but lacks direction. Today’s media landscape is confusing and dangerously oversaturated, and a historically respected voice paving the way for intelligent and constructive online discourse is welcome. Journalism is, unfortunately, an industry, and often at the mercy of the public's fickle desires and consumption behavior. Instead of digging in its heels, it is trudging forward.
I have hope that The Times can create a blueprint for exemplary alternative content. However, algorithmic, simple and easy journalism is also the quicksand in which our generation stands stuck. Scenic gallery-set Instagram reels, album-ranking Tik Toks and pop culture Youtube videos are all interesting forms of entertainment, but not always places for passionate, evocative and thorough journalism. I love a late-night doom scroll, laughing at my highly curated algorithm and swapping reels with my mom, but this exchange lacks the connection, intimacy and intelligence inherent in the written language. As the managing editor of The Emory Wheel’s Arts and Life and Editorial Board sections, I have no interest in being an influencer, but rather an interpreter, as critics have always been.
As Richard Brody explains in The New Yorker, traditional arts criticism is centered around the written review, an invaluable form of journalism. Criticism is an act of service, with the writer serving as a mediator between the maker and the market. The internet is a minefield of disconnection, but the written review is a roadmap toward discourse. For creators, content is more about garnering attention than offering thoughtful analysis. A viral 45-second clip ranking Taylor Swift eras pales in comparison to 800 words tirelessly interrogating the artist’s intention and consumer’s reaction — the former is fun while the latter is vital. These media can and should coexist, but arts criticism should never be fully eclipsed.
Additionally, critics hold artists accountable. In the same way that reporters on Capitol Hill survey the political landscape with a keen eye and glistening badge of honor, arts critics survey exhibition halls and movie theaters, applying pressure to painters and poets alike to offer the public their best. As Brody writes, “When media companies quiet or subordinate voices that meet art where it happens — that lend it the spark of life on the page, that kindle artistic fervor in readers — a decline in enthusiasm for the arts, and for arts journalism, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
It is not the sole responsibility of media companies such as The Times to avoid this prophecy and protect the integrity of arts journalism. Such companies are in a precarious position, walking the thin line between progress and stagnation. But, during this perilous period, media companies should not be so quick to give up on traditional journalism. Major publications that can afford the risk should experiment with new avenues of storytelling, but these changes should be thoughtfully revolutionary, not reactionary.
I implore my fellow college students to seek arts criticism that is ambitious and accessible, provides illuminating insight into the background of the artist and supports conscious consumption of the craft. Chase criticism that is both educational and entertaining, striking the correct balance between individual taste and mass enjoyment. Embrace new forms of journalism without forsaking that which is tried and true. Fight against the declining quality of cultural commentary, and as such, the declining quality of the arts. Traditional criticism persists in national and regional publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, ArtsATL, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and, of course, right here at The Emory Wheel. I think you will find that to avoid drowning in today’s churning sea of media, traditional criticism offers an alluring anchor.
Contact Catherine Goodman at catherine.goodman@emory.edu
Catherine Goodman (26C) is the Managing Editor of Arts & Life and Editorial Board. She is a double major in English and Art History. She plans to pursue arts and culture journalism, with a special interest in criticism and feature writing. When she isn't listening to music or writing her column, you can find her baking specialty cakes or playing with her dog, Apollo.
