From the Editor

Perth Arts Live has generally shied away from using star ratings in its reviews, though they were trialled for a brief period.

The merits of a star rating system are always up for debate across arts media outlets, arts practitioners, and general public. To my knowledge, there is no consensus on best practice for using star ratings in an objective way, and no commonly accepted ratings framework to which most reputable publications adhere.

Indeed, attempting to apply an ‘objective’ framework to a highly subjective and intensely personal field such as ART is a flawed endeavour at best, and deeply damaging at worst. For a sector that has taken blow after blow over the last several years, it seems cruel to measure artist output through such arbitrary means.

And yet, media outlets do use star ratings in the current landscape – but presently they may be used more to hype the arts industry and bring reluctant audiences back into public arts spaces. And surely this is a perfectly reasonable and humane response from writers and arts publications.

Star ratings may look inflated now, but hopefully there will come a time when things even out.

PAL will continue to have ambivalent feelings towards star ratings; it may even take a cue from FRINGE WORLD’s ‘audience reacts’ and develop a sort qualitative shorthand for readers who are too time- or attention-poor to read full reviews. Watch this space…

In the meantime, I would like to tip my hat to Richard Watts, who provided a well-considered guide to star ratings in this article on ArtsHub in 2013. It has served me well during those periods when I have applied star ratings to my reviews, so I post it here for general reference:

0 stars: Painful, dismal, terrible; to be avoided at all costs.
1 star: Deeply underwhelming; deeply flawed; definitely not recommended.
2 stars: Not without its moments, but ultimately unsuccessful.
2 ½ stars: Neither noticeably good nor particularly bad, just adequate.
3 stars: Good work, solid, enjoyable but not brilliant.
3 ½ stars: Very good, clever, well made, though not without its flaws.
4 stars: Brilliant, accomplished, engaging and engrossing but not the absolute best of its kind.
4 ½ stars: Exceptional, inspired, a must see, though still not game-changing in its genre.
5 stars: One of the very best things you’ve ever seen/heard/witnessed in its art form; virtually flawless; exquisite and sublime – the sort of work that redefines its genre, or which you’ll still be talking in 10 years’ time.

– Richard Watts, ArtsHub National Performing Arts Editor

In the end, arts reviews, even those without star ratings, are a flawed way of evaluating ART. But when a performance hits the spot, most of us reviewers want to shout from the rooftops to anyone who will listen: DON’T MISS THIS SHOW.

So we’ll keep watching shows and then reflecting, analysing, describing, translating, and sometimes shouting from the rooftops.

CICELY BINFORD