Measure for Measure

No, not Shakespeare. Here's a blog that, at least at first glance, is a convergence of the many players in the arts blogging discussion. The blog in question is Measure for Measure. Let's count the levels of intrigue:

1. Overt subject matter: songwriting (hence the clever title)
2. Implied subject matter: Art. Or at least the creative process.
3. Written by: songwriters (famous ones, too. Andrew Bird, Roseanne Cash, Suzanne Vega, Darrell Brown
4. Blog host: New York Times. See, this is where it gets interesting. Andrew didn't call Roseanne one day and say, "Hey, let's start a blog and tell everyone what it's like to write a song. What's Suzanne up to--think she'd want to help out?" The Times is paying these contributors to write a "blog" (usually unnecessary quote marks quite necessary here), which will appear for a predetermined number of weeks, with scheduled entries, and the engine of one of the country's largest media outlets providing its power.

Is Measure for Measure a blog? NYTimes.com says so. But it's a very different creature than the umpteen million blogspot-powered one-man bands we might think of when we say blog. For that matter, it's a very different creature than the bigger bands, too (Alex Ross et al). And it's one being replicated by every newspaper and periodical of means in the country. Do these Big Blogs threaten the democratization of arts criticism that the blogosphere might be about? Do they stifle independent, small voices (and doesn't that sound familiar: maybe the questions never change, just the mediums do)? Or are they just part of the mix, adding to the unruly conversations virtually tripping over one another to get our attention?

Everyone's a critic, indeed

Even the perfume critics (who knew?) are swelling the ranks of the blog world. It's a shame that the Times had to steal my title, though. Whatever happened to originality?

The plot thickens

In responding to my post about Michael Agger's article, Eric M draws parallels to the film industry's own version of writing for the page vs. Web: video vs. film. I commend his comments to you, but I want to highlight this statement of his:

We would be wise to accept that a blog critic can not (and should not) compete with a traditional critic using traditional methods, but instead should forge a new path using the strengths of the Internet to his/her advantage.

Agreed, but what happens as those traditional methods disappear? And they are disappearing. It would be terrific to be able to read meaty criticism in the local newspaper, then go online and find another take. But when the paper cuts the critic's position, should we be content with the bullet points of an online review? To be fair, blogging critics write long (and how), thoughtful reviews, but Agger notes that blogging is exempt from the rules of online writing. That is, we seek out blogs that match our interests, and are content to read patiently on blogs. But that means that the population reading the paper isn't going to see these reviews, or be aware they even exist. Do we care if the general populace has access to arts criticism, even if they don't give a whit about last week's concert of the Poughkeepsie Chamber Rock Music Festival?