Crossing lines / crossing currents

Series: Critical distances

Recently, a choreographer-performer contacted me, in my role as editor of Springback Magazine, and offered to pay for a writer of my choice to review his most recent work. I listened to his siren appeal – paid work that doesn’t even touch my budget! – and then replied: sorry, that would clearly be crossing a line.

But what about not crossing the line? This is a murkier zone not of lines, but of cross-currents. What if it had been a venue or festival paying for reviews of artists they represent, or a PR agency for reviews of their clients? Hmm, I think that’s a line. What if the review was sort of folded into more of an interview? Less distinct now. What if they covered travel and accommodation, and the editor handled the writing and publication costs? Well, I’ve done that often enough (it’s called a press trip) though the route is easier to navigate for interviews and previews than for reviews. What if the theatre or festival were advertising in the magazine that publishes the review? Oh dear, that could get awkward, so perhaps it’s safer to avoid reviews and stick with interviews, previews and suchlike. What about accepting interval drinks? Okay, you got me there. What if the venue, festival or PR agency gave review tickets to you, plus a guest? I’d say thank you for the +1. What if the only thing they gave you was your ticket? Frankly, I would expect no less.

I seem to have arrived at another line I wouldn’t want to cross – but in getting here I have traversed a smudgy sea of grey. This, basically, is the zone of press relations, in which various parties need each other, but come with different, sometimes conflicting agendas. And so we chug along in the churn between what is right, whose interests are being served, whether you are sailing solo or with a team, what gets attached to relationships, and what gets attached to money. Choppy waters!

The strongest current, in my experience, is always the money; and the question, for everyone, is how to tack across it. All answers propose some independence between editorial and financial imperatives – but that is a matter of distance, not separation. 

The artist who offered to pay for a review was banking on that distance to lend the review credibility. But what he proposed was not distance, it was direct contact – a handshake on a backroom deal. I don’t blame him for trying: this century has seen both a growth in performances and platforms and a decline in space and money for independent art reviews.

In response to this, more venues, festivals, platforms and PR agencies have produced publications of their own, of some kind. Often there is an intermediary editor, but critical distances are certainly less. All our cross-currents are brought closer together. If these are confluent, that’s great (or at least, no one is upset), but what if they conflict? 

I don’t have a definitive answer (in fact, I don’t think there is one). I just want to point out that this is the terrain that we – artists, agents, venues, editors, writers – are trying to navigate. One result of less distance may be that we can ‘see’ each other more clearly, and recognise our different viewpoints. Another may be conflict avoidance. Reviews – inherently riskier than other formats for promoters – become a casualty of that (along with the craft of reviewing). 

Whatever the individual case, changing distances and directions between financial support and editorial content means critical lines being tested, and sometimes redrawn. ●