Critics bashing critics
Posted 10 October 2002 - 09:20 AM
Homans is someone who is obviously younger (and perhaps biting off more than she can chew in one piece) but she's the voice of a younger generation. One that didn't grow up seeing what the company was and what it is now.
The way NYCB was "glorified" in so many ways early on, makes it ripe for criticism.
And as Kevin pointed out Kisselgoff writes reviews, not really much in terms of commentary.
Thanks Alexandra for the commentary, I was hoping you'd chime in.
Posted 13 October 2002 - 01:17 PM
As someone of the younger generation, who reads the Times for the News and the Post for what's really going on, there are a lot of people who don't know Barnes' history and just look at the piece as someone who's "unprofessional" (given that he writes for the Post).
Posted 14 October 2002 - 01:50 AM
Posted 17 October 2002 - 10:29 AM
Posted 10 October 2002 - 10:53 AM
Who better to criticze a critic than one of her colleagues i.e. another critic. I didn't really like either of the pieces because I felt them both to be blatant speculation without any real cold hard fact backing them up. But I guess it is the critics job to put forth their opinion without necessarily any factual back-up.
Obviously Barnes was very affected by Homans' piece to spend his monthly column on it, and that in itself is very interesting.
Posted 17 October 2002 - 09:46 AM
Posted 18 October 2002 - 02:48 PM
Posted 25 October 2002 - 03:07 PM
Posted 12 October 2002 - 08:38 AM
Posted 12 October 2002 - 08:48 AM
I can understand Mr. Barnes feelings - he's been close to NYCB and ballet in general for many years...I guess to me it seemed odd to bother printing it now. Guess that's the flip side of the Internet (and the newspaper) - you need a lot less lead time. ;)
Posted 13 October 2002 - 03:53 PM
It's OK Farrell Fan, we know you're Suzanne's self-proclaimed lapdog and we accept you as you are. ;)
Posted 12 October 2002 - 12:16 PM
I thought this comment nonsensical: "She complains for instance, that Martins has not called upon the full experience of other Balanchine dancers, forgetting perhaps that teaching and coaching cannot be by committee, as choices must be made and practicalities considered."
To call in Violette Verdy, Patricia McBride, and Suzanne Farrell to coach Jewels, as Edward Villella did for Miami City Ballet is not to teach by committee. It is to recognize the uniqueness of dancers on whom roles were made by Balanchine and who, better than any company director, can perpetuate his heritage for future generations.
I did appreciate Barnes' characterization of the current state of NY Times arts coverage as "roguish, voguish." But I don't think the Homans piece fell into that category. She said nothing that others hadn't been thinking and saying for years.
In the interests of full disclosure, I confess to being Suzanne Farrell's lapdog.
Posted 14 October 2002 - 11:23 AM
Posted 18 October 2002 - 06:22 PM
Anyway, the choice moments of "critic bashing":
She loves trouncing Arlene Croce's "infamous temper tantrum about Bill T. Jones" etc. "'Discussing the Undiscussable' was Croce's way of taking her marbles and going home, because artists had dared to move from the 1950s to the 1990s without requesting her permission." She also says, "the bad news is, [dance critics] will also be known as the folks who gave the world 'victim art'." I say it's not such a bad thing to be known for, but then I'm something of a Croce worshipper.
And Daly notes that Jill Johnston, then institutionalized, once shot back at Clive Barnes, writing: "I also stake out a claim to be an artist, a writer, if that's what I'm doing when I go to the typewriter and decide that I liked something well enough to say what I think it's all about."
Hmmm . . . Siegel, Johnston, Homans--I'd say Barnes is well-practiced at jostling with other critics and embraces it as an occupational duty. I have yet to read the column, and so can't toss in my two cents.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users