New Poll - To crit or not to crit
Mon, 21 July 2003, 03:37 pmcrgwllms18 posts in thread
New Poll - To crit or not to crit
Mon, 21 July 2003, 03:37 pmI don't know whether this suggestion was prompted by a recent production...?
"You see a show;you have friends in it. You think it was crap. Do you congratulate everyone and publish nothing? Yes/No. "
There are probably other options not catered for in this poll, but which may bear discussion here.
The Poll-tergeist
[%sig%]
"You see a show;you have friends in it. You think it was crap. Do you congratulate everyone and publish nothing? Yes/No. "
There are probably other options not catered for in this poll, but which may bear discussion here.
The Poll-tergeist
[%sig%]
Re: New Poll - To crit or not to crit
Mon, 21 July 2003, 06:19 pmI posted this just before the new poll under the Reviews area...so I'm reprinting here 'cause I think it applies to Craigs poll... enjoy!
-------------------------
Hello,
Just something that occured to me recently, given the very *average* standard of journalism that passes for criticism in this town (Perth) - with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.
Anyway, my statement for comment is this:
"Critics need to have a solid understanding and/or their own interpretation of a piece of theatre in order to write an even-handed assessment of it as a successful performance."
In one way, I can see that it would be easier to review, say, an established work but that new work would be difficult to assess.
On the other hand, wouldn't a solid understanding of the script or, at least, an active insight into the processes of putting on a piece (ie. consideration of a director/producers/casts vision) be a way of assessing whether or not that vision had been achieved?
Looking forward to some debate on this... ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
-------------------------
Hello,
Just something that occured to me recently, given the very *average* standard of journalism that passes for criticism in this town (Perth) - with 1 or 2 notable exceptions.
Anyway, my statement for comment is this:
"Critics need to have a solid understanding and/or their own interpretation of a piece of theatre in order to write an even-handed assessment of it as a successful performance."
In one way, I can see that it would be easier to review, say, an established work but that new work would be difficult to assess.
On the other hand, wouldn't a solid understanding of the script or, at least, an active insight into the processes of putting on a piece (ie. consideration of a director/producers/casts vision) be a way of assessing whether or not that vision had been achieved?
Looking forward to some debate on this... ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···