A recent Facebook post by Mark Clements, the respected artistic director at the Milwaukee Repertory Theater, has made me think about my professional occupation as a theater critic for OnMilwaukee.

In his post, Clements also cites a post by Michael Halberstam, like Clements a Brit, and the artistic director at the Writer’s Theatre in Chicago, one of the most respected regional theaters in the country.

Both men discuss their thoughts regarding theater criticism and their decisions not to read reviews. I think both, as brilliant as they are, may miss the fundamental purpose that critics serve. To set this up, here are the two complete posts.

Mark Clements:

We have just opened, in my opinion, a quite wonderful production of FENCES, directed by Lou Bellamy at Milwaukee Rep, which I sincerely urge you all to come and see. Chicago friends, that includes you too! It has already received many wonderful plaudits in the press, and in fact, this has also been the case with quite a few of our more recent productions here at MRT. However, I have also recently taken to not reposting these reviews in full on social media, because as they say in our industry..."If you believe a good one, you need to believe a bad one." I truly value the dedication & commitment of the majority of our Milwaukee critics, and am sincerely grateful for their valuable service and support of us, the industry, & the art form, but sometimes the reading of them for artists can be a huge distraction in the future creation of making better, braver & bolder art. If the critics hate a production, but the audience adore it, or vice versa, should this be the sole, or key metrics for successful endeavour? I have been musing much on this matter for a while now, and then saw a posting from my friend & esteemed colleague, and fellow Artistic Director, Michael Halberstam, reflecting too on this very thing. I feel I cannot be more eloquent & erudite than he right now on this matter, so I share his interesting observations.

Michael Halberstam:

I have chosen not to read reviews for our productions over the past two years. It has been quite liberating and I encourage any fellow artists who are thinking about it to do the same. We are fortunate in Chicago to have many wonderful writers who support our work and our major newspapers and publications recognize the value of theatre and advocate beautifully for us both locally and nationally. I am lucky at Writers Theatre. If audiences like the show they come and tell their friends regardless of reviews. Similarly, even if the reviews are good, if they don't like it, they don't come and they absolutely don't tell their friends. Perhaps notices are best used by our marketing departments and can serve as reference points for audiences, but they not necessarily useful for artists. Perhaps we place so much value on them as an industry because we crave validation. But effective validation can also be discovered internally. If we are in need of more tangible evidence, then there are always options to be explored. Did they come? Did they tell their friends? That's not always an accurate gage of course because every once in a while our work is ahead of the moment and might not be quite ready for popular digestion.

Now in the case of ARCADIA they did come, they saw, they told their friends and we played to largely wildly enthusiastic houses. It has been gratifying I must say.

(Lest I be called out, I must confess to one recent variation on this theme. I DID read Terry Teachout's enormously supportive review of ARCADIA - not the least reason being that director of Marketing - Chad Peterson - told me that I'd be seeing Terry's quotes all over our materials for the next decade so it might save some time to read it up front.)

This past few weeks, I've now stopped reading reviews of other shows and other theatres at the suggestion of Scott Parkinson. It's been deliciously refreshing.

I don't know how long this exercise will last but for now, I'm loving it.

Again, please don't take this as a repudiation of the process. We NEED our critics and I can't help but feel a sense of civic pride in the coverage our local papers particularly give to Chicago Theatre (not the least reason being the passionate advocacy of our critics to their editorial staffs). I love seeing Chris Jones's name on Broadway marquees next to some delicious and supportive quote and both Chris and Hedy can be seen at all theatres great and small on any given night of the week. It's just nice, for now, to not need them on a personal basis.

I reviewed my first play for OnMilwaukee on July 27, 2012. It was a production of Terrence McNally's "The Ritz" at Dale Gutzman’s Off the Wall Theatre. The day before I started, I ran a Milwaukee Talks interview with Ben Brantley, the critic for The New York Times and a friend, and the man generally regarded as the top critic (if there is such a thing) in the world.

In his advice we talked about the issue of writing reviews for people in the theater and for the general public.

"There are specialty publications that write for the trade," Brantley said. "Criticism in daily papers (or online publications) is written for the people who buy the tickets."

That is the point. Whether or not Clements or Halberstam or anyone else in the theater reads a review hardly matters in the grand scheme of things. It might make them feel better, or worse, but I think they should read reviews and try to see them through the eyes of their potential customers.

Any critic has standards, but the key standard is his or her gut. What I think about a play and what I feel are what guide my reviews. I am unswayed by whether I like the people or whether I should try to balance a previous review against the new one. Each production is an event meant to stand by itself.

I believe good reviews should be thoughtful and plainspoken. They should leave no doubt in the minds of the reading public. Too much criticism in Milwaukee and elsewhere can seem overly infused with obscure details understood only by those inside the world of theater. A critic can find both strengths and weaknesses in any given production, but there is also an overall impression that ought to be the guts of the review.

Is this production worth spending your time, money and curiosity on?

As Hamlet said, "That is the question."