Calling Yourself One

One of the things I hear often about folks who write about theatre online vs. in print (or food, film etc.) is that anyone with a url or a blog can start writing and call themselves a critic. I've been thinking about this more and more lately.

Some see this as a sign of progress, opening up the conversation. Some see it as an assault on print journalism, and by extension on critics themselves. There's no ethics or editorial oversight like (there is supposed to be) in print. So someone who just picks up and writes is, depending on how you feel about print critics, either more free/truthful or vastly inferior to established print critics. And of course the bigger the publication the better the writer should be (which we all know isn't exactly true), so they should be more respected.

However, any group of people can pool together a little cash, find a place and put up a show. Anyone can decide to call themselves an artist at anytime. Many of our better critics, at least in Chicago, go see tiny startups on a normal basis. They usually make a decision about the show based on what they see, not where they see it. And every critic I've ever spoken to has at least one story about the little company that could. The ones on a shoestring budget in a church basement (or bar, or you name it) that managed to put together something amazing that blew them away. It makes wading through all the crap, regardless of budgetary levels, worth it.

Anyone can call themselves and artist and go make art. If they're good enough, they'll be taken serious by both artists and critics.

Can anyone call themselves a critic, and if they're good enough be taken serious by both artists and critics? If not, why? What is different?