Posted 17 August 2001 - 10:48 PM
Here's his take on criticism. I found his discussion of how Critic A and Critic B can see something totally different, yet their reviews are still valid; while Critic C...well.....
Posted 18 August 2001 - 12:00 AM
What do others think? Do you value a critic most as a sort of Consumer's Report so you know where to spend your ticket money? Or do you prefer an essayist to a reviewer?
Posted 18 August 2001 - 03:45 PM
But of course, there are very few dance critics who have the chops (not to speak of the column inches) to offer that sort of education. ;)
Posted 18 August 2001 - 08:49 PM
Posted 18 August 2001 - 09:44 PM
Posted 18 August 2001 - 10:31 PM
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Alla ]
Posted 19 August 2001 - 03:19 PM
That topic also was discussed in the following thread:
Posted 20 August 2001 - 04:41 PM
Alla, several people have raised the comparison issue in the past, and there's a feeling among some that it's unfair, that critics should just write about the dancer before them. I can understand this view, but as a critic, I need the comparison tool. If someone tells me he's just seen the next Very Greatest Dancer in the Whole World, I want to know who is this dancer like? (Not that any two great dancers are alike, but someone who's "like" Baryshnikov will be someone very unlike someone who's "like" Dowell, for example.) I also think if I'm reviewing someone who dances a role that was created by someone else, or that has had several definitive interpreters, it's fair game to compare them. There can be lots of perfectly valid ways of doing a role, and I think that should be recognized, but there are times when someone really isn't up to the standard that has been established.
Someone else will be able to do justice to the "comparing isn't fair" side, I'm sure.
Posted 30 August 2001 - 01:42 PM
Posted 31 August 2001 - 09:34 AM
As for comparing dancers themselves (rather than the interpretation of a role), that's obviously more dangerous. There may be a risk of not paying full attention to this dancer's characteristics, of letting a comparison do the work of description. But on the whole I think it helps more than it hurts. I am always interested to hear that some dancer is "after the fashion of" another dancer. It helps me to distinguish better what I'm looking at. There are very few dancers who can't be usefully described in terms of dancers who have gone before -- there's a good reason we call those few "incomparable"!
Posted 31 August 2001 - 05:28 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users