The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.) WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1874. WHAT IS CRITICISM?

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 157, 8 April 1874, Page 2

The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1874. WHAT IS CRITICISM?

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

Simultaneously in England, Australia, and New Zealand the question of the relation the press bears to the public iu its right to criticise Institutions, Corporate bodies, Theatrical performances &c., has cropped up, and is possessed of some considerable interest. A very able article on the subject recently appeared in the London Spectator, which, when we have more space at our disposal, we will reprint; and the Southern Cross of the 25th ultimo asks the pertinent question “ What is Criticism?” and replies to its own question by saying that it is “ exceedingly difficult to answer.” The Cross quotes the action in which damages were laid at £lOOO and £5O obtained by Mr. Ireland an actor in Melbourne, against the Licensed Victuallers Gazette, for criticising him in the play ot “ Faust and Magnetite,” thus :

Faust in the hands of that slovenly, careIt <3 actor, Mr. Ireland, was a farce. The great scene with which the piece opens rests on t.he sudden transformation of an old man into a sparkling, brilliantly-dressed youth. Now, when the gown and beard were twitched off Mr. Ireland, he simply appeared dressed like an ordinary supernumerary in solid garments. ' .Then his delivery of his speeches •was so low, s;dky, and lifeless, that we were really inclined? o think he had some quarrel with the manage‘‘ent about it. We leave him with disgust. .\ During th? L dig of the case

Mr. Gfoßoe Coppix, of “ancient renown,” gives hia opinion of what newspaper criticiain should be, aa follow Then it is most desirable that there should never be any adverse criticism ?—Very desirable. It is the manager’s opinion that a reporter who gets a free pass should laud the acting ? —lt is very desirable. If he does not do that he does not deseive his free pass ?—But we don’t all get our deserts. As a matter of fact, don’t yon think that, a man who comes to see the performance and dosen’t praise it, ought to have his free pass discontinued?—l have been instrumental in knocking off a number of free passes. Because the criticisms were adverse ? — i’es.

Opinions, very much akin to the foregoing, have lately been expressed by some of the more vain and thin skinned of our local amateurs, while smarting under either a plain written adverse truism, or a non-recognition of their names in the dramatis personae. We don’t go so far as Mr. Uoppin as to say that because representatives of the local press have the free list at their disposal, "they are expected not to criticise adversely. But it is generally expected that “ favorable mention ” will be made in return for the compliment. Where this can be candidly done it should be performed as a part of the critic’s duty,—in the honest ratification of his contract with the public, —and not held in mercenary consideration as payment for a favor conferred. Jt is just such expectations as were put forward by Mr. Uoppin, and which are, in some instances, gratified, that lay the press open to a charge of prostitution, and which render newspaper criticism valueless because unreliable. We agree with our elder contemporary the Cross that “there is not a journalist worthy of the name who will accept ” the great theatre man’s doctrines ; and for ourselves we can speak confidently as to what our course is in passing judgment on all public occurrences that require a close identification'with fact. We are decidedly of opinion, that all persons who cater for public support, invite public opinion, and as they like public approbation, so must they be prepared for public censure. To endeavour to escape the latter without deserving the former is indicative of a weak - minded unpreparedness to accept the consequent deserts of individual action. Let public characters never to be individualized, and then they will have courage to face adverse < pinion, and to profit by it. Of course taste must regulate the nature of criticism, so to speak, to a great extent, and the object must be that of merely pointing out where defects lie and marking the periods where excellence exists. It is, therefore, very obvious that as it is mainly by contrast that we arrive at •what is Beautiful and True either in Nature or Art, so, unless we note the blemishes, we can neither illustrate nor compare the excellencies; and we cordially endorse what the Argus says, that “ such an action ought never to have “ been brought before a jury, and that “none but a jury of superhuman “ density would ever have found such “ a verdict as that in •which Mr. Ireland now rejoices.”