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: viewing those crit'ers
Wed, 23 July 2003, 10:34 amCraig & Jeff,
Glad to see you've weighed in. ;o)
Look, I understand the time and editorial pressures on journalists.
I understand that in the perception of newspaper editors, 'Joe Lunchpail' (their distinction, not mine) isn't capable of making any distinction about a piece of performance other than "Is it good, or is it bad?"
I guess my thoughts have cleared a bit since my first posting, and the real question for me is this...
"Does the current standard of critical journalism have a detrimental effect on the quality (and quantity) of the audiences all productions play to?"
That is, should there be a greater 'obligation' on arts writers to impart their true passion for performance, rather than this 'dishwater' stuff being perpetrated now?
For the record, I would rather see a "passionately constructive damnation" of a production by a critic, who had a real 'love' of the artform at the centre of their arguments and their value system, than see the tepid, must-get-to-copy, must-get-to-press, must-appeal-to-lowest-common-denominator *BLANDNESS* currently passing itself off as arts journalism.
And I think there is a huge distinction between the sort of puff pieces, sensationalism, and vitriol we see now and the type of criticism I am envisioning above.
Would you agree/disagree?
You know, the more I think about it, the more apparent it seems to me that this issue is much more at the heart of the apparent 'decline' of things than would appear on the surface.
BTW, Craig, I applaud your stance on not writing anything rather than writing 'something' to clear the backlog! ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
Glad to see you've weighed in. ;o)
Look, I understand the time and editorial pressures on journalists.
I understand that in the perception of newspaper editors, 'Joe Lunchpail' (their distinction, not mine) isn't capable of making any distinction about a piece of performance other than "Is it good, or is it bad?"
I guess my thoughts have cleared a bit since my first posting, and the real question for me is this...
"Does the current standard of critical journalism have a detrimental effect on the quality (and quantity) of the audiences all productions play to?"
That is, should there be a greater 'obligation' on arts writers to impart their true passion for performance, rather than this 'dishwater' stuff being perpetrated now?
For the record, I would rather see a "passionately constructive damnation" of a production by a critic, who had a real 'love' of the artform at the centre of their arguments and their value system, than see the tepid, must-get-to-copy, must-get-to-press, must-appeal-to-lowest-common-denominator *BLANDNESS* currently passing itself off as arts journalism.
And I think there is a huge distinction between the sort of puff pieces, sensationalism, and vitriol we see now and the type of criticism I am envisioning above.
Would you agree/disagree?
You know, the more I think about it, the more apparent it seems to me that this issue is much more at the heart of the apparent 'decline' of things than would appear on the surface.
BTW, Craig, I applaud your stance on not writing anything rather than writing 'something' to clear the backlog! ;o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···