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
Thu, 24 July 2003, 03:10 pmJeff Watkins wrote:
> I think I can see your approach to this argument. Is the
> "apathy" [my term] of journalistic review impacting upon the
> overall performance attendance by the paying public?
Yes. So does it? ;o)
I think most of us would agree that the best teachers we ever had (school or life) were those who imparted their passion for their subject.
Why aren't the people who have been placed in the position of 'expert' held to the same standard? By definition an 'expert' has something to teach us if we're interested in their subject, right?
So it follows that critics/reviewers, having been placed in the position of 'expert', should have a 'passionate teachers' obligation of imparting not only knowledge, but imparting knowledge in an effective way.
Now I know that there are crap teachers as well. Fair enough. But the thing with a one-newspaper town is that ineptitude either as a critic or a 'passionate teacher' far more easily "pollutes".
Warmly
Jason Seperic
> I think I can see your approach to this argument. Is the
> "apathy" [my term] of journalistic review impacting upon the
> overall performance attendance by the paying public?
Yes. So does it? ;o)
I think most of us would agree that the best teachers we ever had (school or life) were those who imparted their passion for their subject.
Why aren't the people who have been placed in the position of 'expert' held to the same standard? By definition an 'expert' has something to teach us if we're interested in their subject, right?
So it follows that critics/reviewers, having been placed in the position of 'expert', should have a 'passionate teachers' obligation of imparting not only knowledge, but imparting knowledge in an effective way.
Now I know that there are crap teachers as well. Fair enough. But the thing with a one-newspaper town is that ineptitude either as a critic or a 'passionate teacher' far more easily "pollutes".
Warmly
Jason Seperic
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···