Thanks for the reply.
I think there are some facts that, when stated, are known and accepted to be true. Of course those do not need to be backed up.
But when someone makes a statement for which there is potential doubt about it's veracity, then I think they should either back it up from the beginning or be prepared to when questioned.
No one wants a forum of posts where everyone is asking for sources, but at the same time, we get nowhere when people are allowed to post whatever they want without any bearing on reality.
My post is not intended to encourage people to become the credit police, rather to encourage people to think twice before they post - perhaps asking, "do I really know this to be true, or do I simply assume it to be true."
As to the critic issue: I cannot see any good coming from turning reviews into dialogues. The critic can only review that which is presented. Sometimes a critic won't "get it." It happens. Other critics will and balance is restored to the universe.
But sometimes (often) it is the performer/artist who failed to accurately and clearly convey their intended fealingful response. The piece fails. It is the critics job to report that. In fact, that's all they CAN do.
I review products for magic magazine. I get a few emails from people I review who thank me for pointing out things they will now consider in future endeavors. (I realize reviewing a product and reviewing a work of art are more than slightly different animals.) And I get emails from people going ballistic, threatening me, defending their work, who will never grow because they will never listen.
If every review was a dialogue, nothing would ever get reviewed and the things that did would be too influenced by the dialogue to accurately reflect what the thing IS.
when you see the show, you get the show. You don't get the dialogue. That's why you review the show.
That's all you can do.
I cannot see how opening up a dialogue would create better reviews. If anything, it would make it even more difficult for people to remain objective. It was Mike Close who warned me that it would not be the enemies that I made, but the friends I would loose. It is not the critics job to be the artists friend. It is their job to criticize the art.
Finally, I use whatever language I feel will achieve my goals at the time. Most of my clients are successful adults, sophisticated, not afraid of Broadway shows like Avenue Q nor do they blush when they watch South Park.
My job is to know my audience and offer something they will find interesting.
If I'm performing after they've had Dennis Miller, then that tells me what they are comfortable hearing. But ultimately, as an "artist" (and I use that term lightly) it is my job to make judgments and my responsibility to accept the consequences there of.
Everyone makes mistakes. But how much better to make a mistake once or twice and offer something interesting, exciting, and enjoyable to a client than to play it so safe that people dismiss one's work as milquetoast, meaningless signifying nothing.
To hint at another thread's content, I think this is the reason magic is held in such low respect - because no one tries to say anything. We are taught that magic should be for the family. That tricks with complex themes are to be avoided. But this is true of no other art.
Ultimately, when people hire me, they are not hiring a magician. A magician is a commodity you can get from any one stop talent agency at much cheaper rates.
No, people are hiring me. Because of who I am, what I do, and how I do it.
It is my voice they want to listen to (we can argue their taste) and it is that which I present.
I say it, I stand by it, I reap the consequences.
That's all anyone can do.
I think there are some facts that, when stated, are known and accepted to be true. Of course those do not need to be backed up.
But when someone makes a statement for which there is potential doubt about it's veracity, then I think they should either back it up from the beginning or be prepared to when questioned.
No one wants a forum of posts where everyone is asking for sources, but at the same time, we get nowhere when people are allowed to post whatever they want without any bearing on reality.
My post is not intended to encourage people to become the credit police, rather to encourage people to think twice before they post - perhaps asking, "do I really know this to be true, or do I simply assume it to be true."
As to the critic issue: I cannot see any good coming from turning reviews into dialogues. The critic can only review that which is presented. Sometimes a critic won't "get it." It happens. Other critics will and balance is restored to the universe.
But sometimes (often) it is the performer/artist who failed to accurately and clearly convey their intended fealingful response. The piece fails. It is the critics job to report that. In fact, that's all they CAN do.
I review products for magic magazine. I get a few emails from people I review who thank me for pointing out things they will now consider in future endeavors. (I realize reviewing a product and reviewing a work of art are more than slightly different animals.) And I get emails from people going ballistic, threatening me, defending their work, who will never grow because they will never listen.
If every review was a dialogue, nothing would ever get reviewed and the things that did would be too influenced by the dialogue to accurately reflect what the thing IS.
when you see the show, you get the show. You don't get the dialogue. That's why you review the show.
That's all you can do.
I cannot see how opening up a dialogue would create better reviews. If anything, it would make it even more difficult for people to remain objective. It was Mike Close who warned me that it would not be the enemies that I made, but the friends I would loose. It is not the critics job to be the artists friend. It is their job to criticize the art.
Finally, I use whatever language I feel will achieve my goals at the time. Most of my clients are successful adults, sophisticated, not afraid of Broadway shows like Avenue Q nor do they blush when they watch South Park.
My job is to know my audience and offer something they will find interesting.
If I'm performing after they've had Dennis Miller, then that tells me what they are comfortable hearing. But ultimately, as an "artist" (and I use that term lightly) it is my job to make judgments and my responsibility to accept the consequences there of.
Everyone makes mistakes. But how much better to make a mistake once or twice and offer something interesting, exciting, and enjoyable to a client than to play it so safe that people dismiss one's work as milquetoast, meaningless signifying nothing.
To hint at another thread's content, I think this is the reason magic is held in such low respect - because no one tries to say anything. We are taught that magic should be for the family. That tricks with complex themes are to be avoided. But this is true of no other art.
Ultimately, when people hire me, they are not hiring a magician. A magician is a commodity you can get from any one stop talent agency at much cheaper rates.
No, people are hiring me. Because of who I am, what I do, and how I do it.
It is my voice they want to listen to (we can argue their taste) and it is that which I present.
I say it, I stand by it, I reap the consequences.
That's all anyone can do.
