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: Criticisim or Critique
Tue, 22 July 2003, 10:32 amFair point on definition, Jeff...
And as you rightly point out, our journo's are in the business of reviewing, not criticism - to my mind, a highly inferior use of the space they are allotted.
In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that there has been a complete dearth of real theatrical criticism for many years in WA and, in its way, this dearth has contributed particularly to a decline in attendance numbers.
Why? Because the reviewer passes on their level of passion and intrigue about a particular project...even if they don't like the production, a good critic (vs reviewer) will intrigue a potential pundit by their coherent arguments, made with a passion for their field.
Sure great critics are rare...but in some ways I believe they can be 'made' via a systemised approach. For instance, couldn't a critic get *involved* in a production at a level?
In Germany, I believe it was once the practice of the critic to not only read the script and formulate an opinion on the writing, but to sit down with the creative members of the production team and really try to come to grips with what they were trying to achieve.
The critic would then assess the final product on the basis of the script and the success of the production teams approach to it as a piece of theatre.
The best analogy I can come up with is the approach taken by GODA trained adjudicators at drama festivals. Whether they feel a production "works" or not, they certainly inspire controversy, discussion and, sometimes, real "passion" amongst the spectators! ;o)
And the practitioners generally walk away determined to "do better next time" as they have genuinely learnt something...even if they didn't like what they heard.
Now, the GODA trained adjudicators generally do read the scripts being presented and formulate an opinion on them and assess the merits of the production in bringing that text to "life" - the one thing they generally don't do is to sit down with the production team...but then it is a "competitive" environment, isn't it?
In the cold war world of the two Berlins, their critics approach contributed to some truly inspirational attempts at both classical and contemporary works - mainly because directors and actors were inspired to outdo their last efforts!
The other point about real criticism vs 'surface-level' reviewing is an argument of posterity - ie. that *whatever* is written about a production is basically what survives that production...I can't remember who said it, but "Criticism is the chronicler of the time" as far as theatrical production goes, simply because performance is the most ephemeral of the art forms.
Bottom line: is what generally passes for criticism in this town doing justice to the people who give their blood, sweat and tears to this artform? Or their audiences?
Perhaps, I ask too much...? ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
And as you rightly point out, our journo's are in the business of reviewing, not criticism - to my mind, a highly inferior use of the space they are allotted.
In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that there has been a complete dearth of real theatrical criticism for many years in WA and, in its way, this dearth has contributed particularly to a decline in attendance numbers.
Why? Because the reviewer passes on their level of passion and intrigue about a particular project...even if they don't like the production, a good critic (vs reviewer) will intrigue a potential pundit by their coherent arguments, made with a passion for their field.
Sure great critics are rare...but in some ways I believe they can be 'made' via a systemised approach. For instance, couldn't a critic get *involved* in a production at a level?
In Germany, I believe it was once the practice of the critic to not only read the script and formulate an opinion on the writing, but to sit down with the creative members of the production team and really try to come to grips with what they were trying to achieve.
The critic would then assess the final product on the basis of the script and the success of the production teams approach to it as a piece of theatre.
The best analogy I can come up with is the approach taken by GODA trained adjudicators at drama festivals. Whether they feel a production "works" or not, they certainly inspire controversy, discussion and, sometimes, real "passion" amongst the spectators! ;o)
And the practitioners generally walk away determined to "do better next time" as they have genuinely learnt something...even if they didn't like what they heard.
Now, the GODA trained adjudicators generally do read the scripts being presented and formulate an opinion on them and assess the merits of the production in bringing that text to "life" - the one thing they generally don't do is to sit down with the production team...but then it is a "competitive" environment, isn't it?
In the cold war world of the two Berlins, their critics approach contributed to some truly inspirational attempts at both classical and contemporary works - mainly because directors and actors were inspired to outdo their last efforts!
The other point about real criticism vs 'surface-level' reviewing is an argument of posterity - ie. that *whatever* is written about a production is basically what survives that production...I can't remember who said it, but "Criticism is the chronicler of the time" as far as theatrical production goes, simply because performance is the most ephemeral of the art forms.
Bottom line: is what generally passes for criticism in this town doing justice to the people who give their blood, sweat and tears to this artform? Or their audiences?
Perhaps, I ask too much...? ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···