Jump to content


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)

Reading reviews of one's own work


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Estelle

Estelle

    Platinum Circle

  • Foreign Correspondent
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,706 posts

Posted 23 October 2000 - 09:38 AM

There have already been some discussions on this site about critics and reviews, but it was about the ballet viewer's point of view.

I was wondering about the point of view of the people who are actually implied in performances (dancers, choreographers, ballet masters, costume designers, lighting designers, etc.) I've often read interviews of artists (mostly actors or singers) who said they never read reviews about their own work, or that said very negative things about critics in general, and I was wondering about how general such an attitude was. So, for the people on this board who have had the opportunity to have reviews written about their own work: do you pay some attention to such reviews? Is it important for you? Have you ever read some reviews which made you feel very happy or proud, or on the other side depressed or angry ? Did it influence your other works ? Do you feel that the reviewers sometimes neglect some aspects of ballet performances ? (I remember that Jeff Salzberg complained about the lack of attention to lighting design...)

#2 salzberg

salzberg

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 23 October 2000 - 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Estelle:
(I remember that Jeff Salzberg complained about the lack of attention to lighting design...)



Me? Complain? Never!

Whenever I am serving as Stage Manager, one of my jobs is usually to find out which dancers (or actors) do or do not want to know when critics are in the house and which performers want to see reviews before the end of the run.

As a designer, I always want to know who's there and I always want to read the reviews right away, but my situation is different from that of the dancers; my work is already done and its quality is unlikely to be affected by my reaction to a critic's comments, as opposed to the dancers, who do not need to be onstage thinking "the Times critic didn't like me in this section".

------------------
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
portfolio: [url="http://"http://www.suncoast.quik.com/salzberg"]www.suncoast.quik.com/salzberg[/url]
email: salzberg@suncoast.quik.com

[This message has been edited by salzberg (edited October 23, 2000).]

#3 Calliope

Calliope

    Gold Circle

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 805 posts

Posted 23 October 2000 - 10:54 AM

I admit I read my reviews. You take them with a grain of salt. I used to see if the reviewer "got" what I was trying to convey to the audience. And a big role, well that was a major event, when it wasn't covered, that was a little hard to take. While no dancers really base themselves on their critiques, sometimes that outside review was an opinion of someone who wasn't in the studio throughout the process.

#4 Guest_ltraiger1_*

Guest_ltraiger1_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 23 October 2000 - 11:03 AM

Calliope,

The success of the work should not depend on the studio process and it cannot depend on the audience's knowledge of that process. A work of art should, always, be able to rest on its own merits. Perhaps the development and studio process are interesting and may be appropriate for a critic or writer to cover in a preview article, but on stage on the day of the performance, the audience must rely on the work itself, not on the intent, thoughts or process of the art maker and artists.

[This message has been edited by ltraiger1 (edited October 23, 2000).]

#5 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,271 posts

Posted 23 October 2000 - 11:52 AM

ltraiger, that's a topic all its own (and an interesting one, I think)! I'm going to copy it over and start a new thread, I think. I don't want to discourage dancers/choreographers etc. from speaking out on this one.

Calliope, good to see you again. I hope you've noticed that we've added a forum "Dancer to Dancer" in Special Groups.

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 23, 2000).]

#6 Leigh Witchel

Leigh Witchel

    Editorial Advisor

  • Editorial Advisor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 23 October 2000 - 11:57 AM

I think you're both right.

As an artist, the success of the work does in fact reside in the process, because once it's handed off to the audience, they can do what they choose with it.

As a viewer, you takes what you sees and there's usually no way to rely on outside information, nor should you.

I've found that many reviews are enlightening simply to find out the point of view of someone who has no vested interest in your work and only gets to look at it once.

In 1994, I got reviews of my concert which were diametrically opposed, one said the second work on the program was brilliant and the fourth work was devoid of any intellectual content whatsoever. The other review said the second piece was dull and the fourth piece was the only piece with any real interest. Stuff like that really helps you to understand that what you're reading are opinions in print. I try and be as circumspect about the laudatory ones as the negative ones and remember that I know whether I did a good job or not.

In 1995, the auditor from the National Endowment of Arts said that there was one work on the program that seemed to have significantly more effort put into it than the others. I wasn't thinking about it at the time, but when I heard it, I realized it was a fair assessment.

In 1998 a NYSCA auditor who came to a really problematic opening night of mine (the dancers got the costumes five minutes before curtain, there was an issue with the slipperiness of the fabric that caused them to blow almost all their partnered lifts, there were other technical problems we hadn't been able to iron out and it affected their performances; I felt like committing ritual suicide by the end of the night, but things were fixed by the end of the run.) She reported that the dancers didn't look up to the level of the choreography and that the works looks repetitious. I thought her assessment was unfortunate to me, but fair. She was right the choreography was repetitious, I thought it was as well, but I had replaced one dancer's spot twice and had simply run out of time to edit. But that's what she saw, there was no way for her to know the reasons for the defaults and her judgment was reasonable based upon the viewing. I was sorry she hadn't come later in the run, but I didn't take it to heart, nor try to solve the problem as she saw it (low level of dancers) but as I saw it (reliability of dancers, rehearsal scheduling and process)

It's interesting to be on both sides of this fence, and it does affect how one writes, still I can guess some of the reasons for problems in a piece (for instance, I'll always say something looked underrehearsed to me if that's what it looked like, my own experience has taught me the signs) but the guess isn't always right.



------------------
Leigh Witchel - dae@panix.com
[url="http://"http://members.aol.com/lwitchel"]Personal Page and Dance Writing[/url]
[url="http://"http://members.aol.com/dnceasever"]Dance as Ever[/url]

#7 Calliope

Calliope

    Gold Circle

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 805 posts

Posted 23 October 2000 - 01:21 PM

I think Leigh hit it on the head. What I was implying was not whether or not the piece is a success, but whether or not (in some instances) the coaching worked.
In a lot of ways you're helpless when it comes to the audience. You can nudge them and hopefully in the right direction, but many outside factors influence a ballet. I once had a woman come up to me after a performance of "Stars and Stripes" and she didn't like it b/c she was from Germany. She found the "pomp and circumstance" too much. I thought it funny b/c Mr. B wasn't American either. But we can't control what an audience goes into the performance with but hopefully we can disparage some of their feelings and get them to enjoy the performance. Not necessarily understand it either, it took me years of doing "Agon" before I "got it"

#8 salzberg

salzberg

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 23 October 2000 - 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Calliope:
But we can't control what an audience goes into the performance with


When I was teaching college, I told my students that "the essence of theatre is one person performing and one person watching". It doesn't truly become art until both are participating.

This means, of course, that each dance becomes a different work each night, because each night brings a new audience.


------------------
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
portfolio: [url="http://"http://www.suncoast.quik.com/salzberg"]www.suncoast.quik.com/salzberg[/url]
email: salzberg@suncoast.quik.com

#9 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,271 posts

Posted 24 October 2000 - 12:56 PM

Leigh wrote: "Stuff like that really helps you to understand that what you're reading are opinions in print." I have to take exception to that Posted Image I used to read posts on alt.arts.ballet that said, basically, "critics are just people who have the power to write what they think, but as soon as I read two reviews that said different things, I caught on that they don't know anything more than anybody else and they're just writing opinions." Well, as a critic, naturally I disagree Posted Image

Not to say there aren't bad critics, stupid critics, critics who are misinformed, critics who don't know anything but are given the chance to write something and do, and probably critics who are the earthly manifestation of evil Posted Image However, the discipline of criticism requires that you do NOT write an opinion, and this doesn't contradict the fact that out of ten reviews, there may be five, seven, even ten different points of view.

When I watch a performance of anything now, I know when I'm watching with my "critic" mindset or my "opinion" mindset. I have to really work to turn off the critic switch and just watch something without judging it or trying to figure out what it is they're doing, or whether the reality matches the intention, or is it structurally sound, dramatically clear, etc.

An opinion is a casual observation -- it can be strongly held, it can be off-the-cuff -- but it is merely an expression of taste. In this sense, we all have opinions and they're all equally valid. Criticism is different. It's applyling a set of standards and judgments and reaching a conclusion -- biased and individual, yes, but far more complex than an expression of opinion.

#10 Calliope

Calliope

    Gold Circle

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 805 posts

Posted 24 October 2000 - 01:44 PM

Alexandra,
What keeps a criticism from becoming an opinion? Who sets the standards that the critics judge by? Maybe this should be a different topic. But I'm curious. If you go by dictionary definition an opinion is a "belief stronger than an impression" which makes it more than a "casual observation"

#11 Manhattnik

Manhattnik

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 24 October 2000 - 02:48 PM

I have to think that "impression," "opinion" and "criticism" are all points on a certain continuum -- there's no ready line of demarcation between them, although it seems one could say that a criticism is an opinion with footnotes.

Calliope, critics set their own standards. There's no governing body, and many have very differing approaches to their work. While there's certainly a body of "accumulated wisdom" as to what should be in a review or analysis, what it really boils down to is a critic is someone who's convinced an editor he or she is indeed one.

#12 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,271 posts

Posted 24 October 2000 - 03:58 PM

Calliope, I'm using the terms in the way they're used in aesthetics (or at least were when I studied aesthetics Posted Image ), that opinion is an expression of taste and criticism is an expression of judgment -- a conclusion based on the writer's own aesthetic standards. No one person or body sets the standards that critics judge by, but the community itself works to set one -- in the same way this or that choreographer becomes thought of as a central figure, and thus "the standard."

Manhattnik, I do not think it is merely a matter of convincing (hoodwinking, cajoling, etc) an editor into thinking one is a critic. There are certainly instances of that, but responsible newspapers and magazines go much further, like checking with other critics as well as reading a considerable number of clips and probing the writer's background and qualifications.

Some magazines (including mine) have a critic write several features first to determine how much background they actually have. Holes in knowledge or blind spots show up very quickly. Many of us think we know a great deal, but are really only knowledgeable about one or two companies, or one particular style. There could be other problems. Several years ago, I had one person who was very eager to write and had an enormous amount of knowledge, but was so vituperative that, as one of my other writers said, "it would be wrong to unleash her on dancers." So every publication has different criteria. (And sometimes it's just a matter of matching sensibilities with a particular publication; there can be incompatibilities.)

There are checks in the process as well. I know of instances locally where a critic has been given assignments without (IMO) a thorough background check -- it's amazing how often people have clips that make it seem as though they can write, and it's only when you get their unedited copy that you realize how much editing had gone into making those clips publishable. Aside from quality of writing, there have been people whose ignorance has been exposed in a review, OR there have been many complaints, letters, etc that cannot be traced to friends and relatives of the subject of the review, OR several other critics who also attended the performance will go to the editor and say, no, this is more than a difference of opinion, the person doesn't know enough to write about X.

When I started -- I had never been published before I wrote for the Post -- I was in a criticism class with Alan Kriegsman, then the Post's dance critic, who was looking for two stringers. (I took the class because I thought I could learn from him how to analyze performances, not in any hopes or desires of being a critic.) I wrote about 20 reviews of very different performances during the semester and he asked me at the end of it if I would be interested in writing for the Post. For the first two years, he was very careful about where he sent me, and I could tell there were times when I got "promoted" -- to do a premiere, or an unfamiliar company, etc. And I had the privilege of having many "tutorials" by Kriegsman and another Post critic -- they were extremely generous with their knowledge and answered incessant questions. So although there isn't a degree in criticism comparable to one in musicology, there certainly is training.

I like Manhattnik's "criticism is an opinion with footnotes." I think that's a major part of it. But I also think it's a matter of mindset. I've "discovered" about a dozen critics, and I've known they were critics from reading their letters or, in several cases simply from conversation, that they had a critical mindset.

None of this is meant to say that there aren't incompetent, or dubious, critics, and there are often times when I wonder how that person ever got into print. But then, I have analogous thoughts about artistic directors Posted Image

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 24, 2000).]

#13 Calliope

Calliope

    Gold Circle

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 805 posts

Posted 24 October 2000 - 04:21 PM

That's for that Alexandra. I never realized critics went through training. Although I think some of them have gone through boot camp!

#14 Leigh Witchel

Leigh Witchel

    Editorial Advisor

  • Editorial Advisor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 24 October 2000 - 04:44 PM

My apologies, Alexandra. I didn't mean for "opinion" to connote untrained, but the possibility of multiple conclusions, just as the Supreme Court renders opinions, and dissensions, even among scholars of the law. Many of their rulings are by no means unanimous and are often overturned in the future. They aren't fact. They are an interpretation, as is opinion or criticism.

As Alexandra mentioned, it's possible for very good writers to come up with diametrically opposed conclusions. It's not that they are "just" opinions; or that criticism is a sham. It's simply that the final judge of an artist's accomplishments really ought to be the artist him or herself.

------------------
Leigh Witchel - dae@panix.com
[url="http://"http://members.aol.com/lwitchel"]Personal Page and Dance Writing[/url]
[url="http://"http://members.aol.com/dnceasever"]Dance as Ever[/url]

[This message has been edited by Leigh Witchel (edited October 24, 2000).]

#15 salzberg

salzberg

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 24 October 2000 - 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Manhattnik:
Calliope, critics set their own standards. There's no governing body



Well, there is, sort of. It's called "the editor".


------------------
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
portfolio: [url="http://"http://www.suncoast.quik.com/salzberg"]www.suncoast.quik.com/salzberg[/url]
email: salzberg@suncoast.quik.com


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):