Sad to hear that Vancouver arts critic Lloyd Dykk died this week. He suffered a stroke at age 67.

It strikes me his passing may mark the end of a era. Although I hope not.

Dykk was one of the heavy hitters of Canadian arts journalism. He was most renowned, and sometimes notorious, for his theatre reviews in the Vancouver Sun.

Dykk was an old-school critic, a gifted writer, an educated man passionate about telling the truth.

Mediocrity or pretension made him tetchy. If encountered, he could be vicious.

One infamous review took aim at The Phantom of the Opera in 1991. For Dykk, the much-hyped mega-musical was not only a horrendous night of theatre, it was an indication we're all going to Hades on a remote-controlled chandelier-drop.

"Only a cynically decadent society bloated with excess could produce an appetite for a big, fat, vulgar spectacle such as this and only a mediocrity such as Andrew Lloyd Webber could be enough of an opportunist to respond to it. Marketing does the rest."

Kaboom. Letters whizzed in. Some applauded Dykk's coruscating wit. Others, such as letter-writer Gwen Bavin of Victoria, complained.

"I would like to know what Mr. Dykk's qualifications are. His scathing report indicates an abysmal ignorance of the story of The Phantom and of the many great works of Andrew Lloyd Webber. He is also apparently incapable of accurately assessing the musical and acting ability of the superb cast.

He is definitely at odds with the audience."

Dykk wrote about being a theatre critic in an award-winning 1993 column. He observed: "I knew I was hated and though it wasn't pleasant, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way, otherwise I might not have been doing my job."

Dykk was theatre critic at the Sun for nine years.

He, and the Vancouver paper's other superb arts writer, Michael Scott, were my heroes. I started at the Times Colonist in the late '80s.

To me, a rookie in my 20s, these guys were the arts-writing equivalents of Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle.

Much has changed since then. Today there are fewer Babes and Mickeys. The computer revolution has hit newspapers hard. It's been especially rough on arts journalists (yes, I imagine few readers are wringing their hankies for us). In newspapers across North America, arts coverage is significantly reduced and many journalists have been laid off.

It's partly economics. But it's also about the reduced role of the critic in the public's eyes. The Internet has allowed everyone, potentially, to become a reviewer. The traditional print-medium critic no longer wields the influence he or she may have once had.

"Arts criticism" is increasingly a thumbs-up/thumbs-down affair. The critic becomes tipster for the harried consumer. Typically, to choose a movie, we link to the "Tomatometer," on Rotten Tomatoes, making choices based on the percentage of positive reviews a film receives.

I'm sure most of us do not read these reviews.

We're in the midst of an unprecedented technological maelstrom, fostering a fevered buzz of communication as never before. Some predict the death of arts criticism - that those voices will be lost within the electronic din. I think these things go through phases. There are always intelligent, thoughtful readers. There are always those who believe the arts not only matter, but are crucial to a fulfilled life.

In his 1993 column, Dykk took note of commonly held - but to his mind erroneous - notions about theatre writing.

1. Critics should be boosting the theatre, not knocking it.

2. The critic should, in a review, "reflect what the audience thought."

3. Critics are too picky. 4. Critics' attacks are "too personal and biased."

5. The critic should not use "humour or linguistic tricks" to call attention to himself or herself.

6. Don't criticize something you cannot do yourself. And don't review the audience.

He was correct. Dykk knew the critic is not an advocate for the arts community - although most are passionate about the arts and are thrilled to recognize excellence. The critic's duty is

not to the theatre community, but to the reader.

Naturally, that causes friction. I shall not achieve what Lloyd Dykk did in his lifetime; however, I have shared his experience of not being Mr. Popular. So far this year, several members of the arts community have already written to say I am utterly ignorant about theatre and music.

And there are theatre folk who, because of things I've written years ago, will not speak to me.

Writing criticism is no way to make friends. It can be lonely.

Yet despite it all - the vitriol, the critic's waning influence - I still think it's an important and worthwhile thing.

Sometimes the critic is mistaken or misinformed. There are the pitfalls of personal biases and tight deadlines. But there is value in careful description, thoughtful analysis and well-supported opinion.

I never had the chance to meet Lloyd Dykk. I wish I had, if only to tell him he was a fine critic and a stellar example to other writers.

And that, in the end, it had all been worth it.

achamberlain@timescolonist.com