Alex Ross, music critic, The New Yorker; blogger and author, The Rest Is Noise
The growth of online criticism means that the conversation about various art forms is widening. With huge gaps opening in arts coverage in the mainstream media—in classical we’ve seen the almost total disappearance of criticism from national publications—blogs and websites have allowed the conversation to go on. The essential question is whether critics are doing their utmost to make the art come alive for readers.

A.O. Scott, film critic, The New York Times
It’s always the same: How do I avoid stupidity and cliché?

Adam Feldman, theater critic, Time Out New York
The essential question, though perhaps cast in deeper relief, will remain what it has in some sense always been: How can a critic differentiate between his or her subjective taste and a more "objective" set of standards that we might call, for lack of a better term, Taste? 

Mike Wolf, music editor, Time Out New York
Can criticism tell us more than just what’s in a piece of music? That’s the question. As in, not just what’s there, but what’s there that’s important. Too much criticism today reads like an autopsy, like, “The band does this, and then there’s also this and this.” I’m always drawn to writing that homes in on the important concepts in a work of art, that tries to set it in the context of its form, its contemporaries, its world.

Darcy James Argue, editor, music-and-culture blog Darcy James Argue’s Secret Society
One charge we’ve all heard leveled at blogs is that they are “all about the blogger.” The people making this accusation generally seem to think this is a very bad thing, but I’m not so sure.… When you follow someone’s blog, you tend to get a much more vivid sense of the writer’s values and priorities than you get from reading a traditional review. I think this is much healthier than passively accepting someone’s verdict because they happen to write for The New York Times.

Rocco McFee, editor, WhatBlows
Criticism is an art form in itself that people go to school to study, perhaps stumble into, or develop on their own.  Good criticism should have a future life, the same way that the work being criticized does.  The theatre criticism of Harold Clurman or George Bernard Shaw, or even the dance criticism of Edwin Denby, can be looked at today as a document of the work and the era in which it was created.  That's what critics have the power to do. I started my blog, WhatBlows, as more of a public discussion...where I do all the talking.  I have a lot of respect for a well written, informed review, but at the same time, sometimes I just want somebody I trust to say, "the play sucked, don't waste your money."  

Garrett Eisler, editor, The Playgoer
My biggest questions are, who will write it? And where will people read it? As for the “who,” expertise in criticism seems valued less and less in the media. Mainstream journalism has always favored entertaining (and EZ-reading) prose over informed and informative opinions.

I ask “where” since it’s not clear whether newspapers and magazines will continue—as they have been for over 100 years—to be the main source of “reviews” as we now know them.

Steve Smith, classical music editor, Time Out New York; editor, music blog Night After Night
We're blessed in New York City to have a fairly wide variety of voices sounding off critically on the subject of classical music. The same still holds true in most major American cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and Chicago. But there is little question that space is increasingly at a premium in the print media, especially for long-form examination and robust discussion of classical music events. And there are few public spaces for discourse between experts, aficionados and newcomers. The blogosphere is important for the information it helps to circulate, but it is every bit as important for fostering a sense of healthy discussion and debate in a manner that has become rare in the physical sphere.

Lizzie Skurnick, editor, books blog Old Hag
My hugest concern is whether print will cease to exist at all. This isn’t because I don’t think great writing can’t or won’t be found online—online venues certainly have the capacity to support far longer pieces than most print publications. But I think the physical space of the screen makes it better suited for short riffs on what exists in print, mainly because I can’t stand to look at it for any longer than that. Print is better for something long enough to read in the tub, drop in the tub, pull out again without being electrocuted.

Mario Naves, art critic, The New York Observer
Criticism entails enough falling on one’s ass as it is—why ask for more of the same trying to guess the future? Better to keep the next deadline in mind than to moon over a crystal ball. The essential question is how to keep on one’s toes.

Next: What makes a critic a critic? »