Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Grace's Review and how criticism is viewed, Part 2


Recommended Posts

I hope those interested in the topic that Grace posted about her review of the West Australian Ballet and how the company viewed that review will continue discussing it here.

Some questions that occurred to me were. Some may be of more interest to writers, but I think we'd all love some feedback from readers as well.

1. Should companies contact critics to complain about a review? (Aside from factual errors, of course)

2. Should critics have a company's viewpoint in the back of their minds as they write?

Which all leads to:

3. For whom should the critic write?

Not forgetting:

4. Is it the critic's responsibility to be a booster?

Link to comment
I hope those interested in the topic that Grace posted about her review of the West Australian Ballet and how the company viewed that review will continue discussing it here.

Some questions that occurred to me were.  Some may be of more interest to writers, but I think we'd all love some feedback from readers as well.

1.  Should companies contact critics to complain about a review? (Aside from factual errors, of course)

2.  Should critics have a company's viewpoint in the back of their minds as they write? 

Which all leads to:

3.  For whom should the critic write?

Not forgetting:

4.  Is it the critic's responsibility to be a booster?

I'll bite...

1. Should companies contact critics to complain about a review? (Aside from factual errors, of course)

No.

2. Should critics have a company's viewpoint in the back of their minds as they write?

They should know all they can, but they should write from the front of the house.

Which all leads to:

3. For whom should the critic write?

The reader. Who varies from forum to forum.

Not forgetting:

4. Is it the critic's responsibility to be a booster?

The critic should be a fervent lover of the field, or should retire from it. If that is boosterism--to love an art form--so be it. But since critics must live in the real world, I might add that justice can be tempered with mercy, particularly in situations where the critic wields actual power, these being few, and far between. (Being for instance critics of the few powerful newspapers of national conseqence, and critics of only daily newspaper in smaller towns and cities.) But not too tempered, and done so the reader can see between the lines. Boosting--what shall I call it, bad art? bad work?--the awful, or even the tepid, has the inherent danger of alienating the reader. Either from oneself ("What bad taste she has") or worse, from the ballet. ("If that's good, I think I'll stay home.")

Link to comment

Good post, Nanatchka. :blushing: Your final point,

Boosting--what shall I call it, bad art? bad work?--the awful, or even the tepid, has the inherent danger of alienating the reader . . . from the ballet. ("If that's good, I think I'll stay home.")

is a less obvious but very insidious consequence of promiscuous boosterism. Thanks for that insight.

Link to comment

just a note to say that i have been too busy to allow myself online, this past week, so the previous thread was filled up, culled out, and closed, before i saw all the offerings there. nevertheless, i VERY much appreciated ALL of the posts there, that i DID manage to see - especially the funny ones.

for the record: no, it was NOT simon dow who rang me. and i am quite happy to be directly contacted like this, because i am a "big girl" (at 5'3") and happy to state, clarify and debate my own point of view, with anyone who remains civil. i know however, that my editor was NOT happy that the matter was dealt with this way, and has informed the company that such matters should be directly discussed with HER first, next time...("will there be a 'next' time?" ~ BOUND to be...! :angelnot: )

i found it interesting that creative juice wrote:

"ballet, of all the arts, receives the kindest of reviews by critics. I’ve read reviews of plays, movies, concerts, and sporting events in which the reviewer, while being absolutely honest, was also absolutely ruthless.
i suppose he is right, there. i never thought about that, before.

now, back to the topic - that is, the related topic/s which alexandra has posed as questions HERE.

Link to comment

Oh my, Grace.

That really was a very fair and in-bounds review.

I'll second the other writers here and say that a company should not contact a paper to complain about a review, except in the case of factual errors and I would also add serious conflict of interest. Everyone in the dance world knows everyone else so it's hard not to have some problem with that (I think just about everyone who could review me as a choreographer in NYC knows me professionally as a writer - what are they to do?), but I do recall a time when a company was reviewed by the head teacher of the rival school in town, and the review reflected that bias. I think the company was within its rights to contact the editor regarding that.

Link to comment

My family and I actually went to last performance of Then & Now, and we all agree that Grace described pretty much what we saw.

Of course without the 15 minutes of speechifying as it was the last showing, lucky us. :(

My question would be are they complaining about the review of the show or about comments made about the sponsor (BHP) and the dog and pony before the start of the show?

Link to comment

sorry rob - i don't know what "dog and pony" means.

but they are complaining about my mentioning the speeches, and about the damage THEY see that doing, to their relatiobnship with both the government and the sponsors.

in particular, they feel that i have embarrassed the govt. by suggesting that they aren't supporting the company ENOUGH, and that i have embarrassed the sponsor by mentioning the CEO payout, and by (relatively-speaking) belittling the amount they are giving to the ballet company.

neither of these was my intent - this is like deliberately seing the cup half-empty, IMO.

Link to comment

As Mel Johnson noted it's (I think American) slang.

Dog-and-pony show

NOUN:

Slang - An elaborate presentation orchestrated to gain approval, as for a policy or product.

ETYMOLOGY:

From the razzle-dazzle of trained animal acts at circuses.

Strange when at the McDonald Ballet competition in Sydney this year, the MC was very vocal about how insignificant support from

the state and federal government had been. He also had a bit of fun with their primary sponsor. Noting that in no way where

they suggesting that the kids subsisted on or was Macdonald's food performance enhancing.

I think the person that called you was more concerned, as you noted, with losing what support they had rather than consider that

your article might help motivate or support them in trying to get further funding.

Very small town minded of them, not to mention discourteous of calling you directly. Was it even a official call? Would have made

a great letter to the editor, I would imagine it would have gotten very embarrassing for them.

Link to comment

unbelievable! grace, you shouldn't have to put up with that sort of unprofessional treatment... who on earth do they think they are ?? for them to suggest your review would jeopardise their funding is ridiculous - your criticism of the night being turned into a PR spectacle was well within your rights as a critic. As has already been noticed, you were still generous in your praise...

i'm absolutely flabbergasted.

Link to comment

Once upon a time, when DanceView was Washington DanceView, I got the following offer-you-can't-refuse from one of our local dance companies: "Hi! We'd like to purchase a cover, and we think it would go nicely with a preview of X's new piece."

That's when I stopped accepting advertising. (No, we didn't sell covers, but the guy -- who was genuinely innocent -- thought that a full-page ad could be, well, anywhere. And it would be ever so nice if it didn't LOOK like it was a full-page ad.)

Link to comment

It's a tricky situation -- when is it appropriate for a company/artist to respond to a review? In some situations, it might be very appropriate -- in venues like this website where one of the goals is discussion, that kind of tennis game exchange could be extremely interesting. The structure of most paper publications, though, is to funnel comments through a "letters to editor" section, and disagreements about fact through an actual editor. In both cases, the writer is not a direct participant, which might seem awkward, especially in communities where you know people in the company. As writers we often cultivate those relationships -- there are very few critics who don't know the press rep or other administrative people in the companies they cover regularly. A certain level of insulation can be very helpful, though, especially if it's the kind of situation that might escalate in some way. I've actually encouraged people to write to my editor if they have a comment about what I've written (or, in many cases, what didn't get covered) if for no other reason than to keep the editor aware that there is a dance constituency in my city.

My first responsibility is to dance (with a big D) -- I've been working in that field all my adult life, doing all kinds of jobs. But right now I fulfill that responsibility as a writer, which means I've got to grapple with the specific requirements of dance writing -- to look as widely as I can, to see as clearly as I can, and to tell as evocatively as I can. Pragmatically, I need to please my editor to get my work through that gateway and on to the page.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...