Editors at the Daily Cal constantly give feedback to each other, but not surprisingly, some of the best feedback comes from our readers through comments and e-mails. Readers are not only unconditionally honest; they also provide an “outside” perspective to the organization. They can question practices so ingrained in our minds that we don’t think about them actively all the time.

One of the more interesting comments left in the arts & entertainment section was on an article by writer Matthew Peters about a local exhibit by Napa Valley artist Valerie Raven:

I’m shocked that you’ve stopped exclusively trying to be a fifth-rate Entertainment Weekly by covering mainstream movies and albums … [and] report on the one thing which you are maaaaybe qualified to talk about, Berkeley’s scene. And what do you do? Shit on a local artist? Give me a break!!

This excerpt of this anonymous comment points to questions all college newspapers and smaller publications face: Why cover mainstream releases when so many well-known outlets already cover them? Shouldn’t smaller papers focus on the local scene?

I will begin by saying that we are trying to increase our coverage of the local arts scene, and this will continue to be a goal for the next few semesters. But we also have reasons for not neglecting the mainstream. One reason is that the Daily Cal is a training facility for writers. It is important that writers attempt to cover the Berkeley scene, since it provides them with the opportunity to assemble unique stories, but it is also important that writers attempt to write about mainstream art in creative ways. Local stories are unique for their content alone, but when a writer reviews a highly anticipated movie like “Watchmen,” he or she is forced to think beyond cliches to describe the experience.

The other primary reason is part of criticism’s beauty. Writers for Rolling Stone and The New Yorker automatically have more authority because of their positions, but they are often middle-aged men and women, and they write from the perspective of middle-aged critics. As a result, they are not necessarily speaking for college students’ tastes, which is why we feel that it is important to cover mainstream releases. We write from the perspectives of college-aged students, a demographic that is as interested in the arts as the 30-plus crowd.

The comment also alludes to an interesting ethical question. When we review popular cinema and music, the artists probably do not read our reviews, and they have more influence over their own popularity than we do. But is it right to give a small or local artists tough reviews? The answer is both yes and no.

Yes, because it is wrong to be dishonest or tone down your feelings on the art you review. We find that to be wholly unethical, and if writers lied in their reviews for the sake of not hurting feelings, criticism would suffer immensely.

No, because on the other hand, people don’t want to be told that an artist they have never heard of is not worth checking out. Reviews like that don’t enrich the reader, and they injure artists who are either young, new or still looking for a break.

The problem is that we do not know whether the review is going to be positive or negative until the writer experiences the art. That is why we try to construct negative reviews of local artists so that they are balanced and tackle larger issues. Matthew Peters’ article did do that by questioning what we perceive as art in everyday life and recreating the images and emotions conjured by the pieces. The criticism was also fair, focusing on both the good and bad elements of the exhibit. The least fair part of the article was the headline, which Peters did not write, as correctly pointed out by the commenter.

The comment brings up other excellent points, but these will be saved for another post. I would like to say that comments like that one are very valuable, so we encourage you to comment as much as possible. As writers who critique art, we appreciate being critiqued too, no matter how tough the judgment is.