tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post8631223162856366495..comments2023-09-20T14:34:21.102+02:00Comments on Postcards from the Gods: Critical distanceAndrew Haydonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-61621241867786731172007-09-04T10:37:00.000+02:002007-09-04T10:37:00.000+02:00Sorry Statler, that wasn't not meant to be a shaft...Sorry Statler, that wasn't not meant to be a shaft at you, but at Editors I Have Known. Usually not arts editors, but the bracingly philistine news desk who think that reviews ought to be consumer guides. As I've said, I think there's a space for that, but reviews also create the climate in which work is received, so there's more to it than that.<BR/><BR/>This business about "explaining": I quite agree that a work ought to be able to stand "on its own", as it were. I have enjoyed taking my children of various ages to the theatre for this reason: they are naive watchers with no expectation of what theatre "should" be, and it's interesting to see what they respond to. On the whole, "straight" theatre bores them to tears, whereas the "difficult" and allegedly elitist stuff leaves them excited. (My 12 year old Ben has already insisted I take him to see the contemporary choreographer Jerome Bel, out here for the Melbourne Festival, after he saw him last year - he's very excited). Ok, my kids are privileged in that they probably see more - and certainly more various - theatre than their drama teachers, but they're still kids. They don't mind not understanding something if it gets them where they live, and they're probably more open to work because they don't expect it to be a particular shape.Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-5740308618110444912007-09-04T10:16:00.000+02:002007-09-04T10:16:00.000+02:00Alison said:"...yet in writing about theatre somet...Alison said:<BR/><I>"...yet in writing about theatre sometimes ignorance is flaunted as a virtue (the mug punter "ordinary person" pov, I guess - but then, why have critics at all?)"</I><BR/><BR/>Ouch. Trying to represent the typical theatregoer isn't about ignorance, it's about considering the experience most theatregoers are likely to gain from seeing a production. If a production only works if the writer/director has to explain his aims/intentions to you after the show, then it's of little use to 99% of the audience. I believe largely that productions should be taken at face value and in isolation. While it's great if a deeper understanding can be gained through a wide theatrical knowledge, a production should be able to stand on it's own.Statlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05983866226623322962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-81121857812251442182007-09-04T04:20:00.000+02:002007-09-04T04:20:00.000+02:00PS Lyn Gardner might be so stringent about keeping...PS Lyn Gardner might be so stringent about keeping her distance because she seems like a very nice person. It is difficult for nice people to write things they know will be hurtful. Perhaps I am not so nice, even though I like to think I am.Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-29030170558993719792007-09-04T04:10:00.000+02:002007-09-04T04:10:00.000+02:00Hi AndrewI'm married to a playwright, which is pre...Hi Andrew<BR/><BR/>I'm married to a playwright, which is pretty intimate fraternisation. So, as it happens, is the arts editor of the Age, the local broadsheet - a different playwright, I hastily add - and so was the former senior theatre critic for the same newspaper - so Australians might be said to be more relaxed about this kind of thing. <BR/><BR/>Worse, although I don't think of myself as a theatre writer, I've had a respectable number of theatre productions (though not for some time, and I would hesitate now to work as an artist in the theatre - I think that begins to be too difficult, and I am quite happy working in other artforms. I think I properly belong in the theatre as an audience member). I guess that even from the beginning, when I was a naive and starry-eyed tyro critic, I always approached criticism from the point of view of a practising artist. <BR/><BR/>Critical thinking has always been for me a crucial part of my practice as an artist. I tend to trust artist-critics - the good ones, anyway - more rather than less, since their critiques are generally much better informed. Some French person - Gaston Bachelard I think - says somewhere that in order to understand, one must first admire. Speaking very generally, since I think I can understand quite well some things I <I>don't</I> admire, every good critic should love the artform they criticise. Love being complex, tough and sometimes impossible, of course, like most human things. Some critics give the impression that they hate/despise/envy the artform, which is there only to give occasion for sneers, and they're inevitably poor critics. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, it seems to me that understanding is a desirable thing for a critic, since she (here in Australia, it's more than likely to be she) is a critic by virtue of her supposed expertise in the art. It's always baffled me that in the theatre, expertise can be considered a drawback rather than otherwise: no political commentator would be considered any good if she were ignorant of what's going on in parliament, and yet in writing about theatre sometimes ignorance is flaunted as a virtue (the mug punter "ordinary person" pov, I guess - but then, why have critics at all?) <BR/><BR/>Of course there are ethics to be seriously thought through, and that comes down to the personal conscience of the individual critic. But that's true of any activity, and it's an on-going interrogation - there is always a possibility of self-deception. My only ethic really is always to try to be as honest and upfront as I possibly can.Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-87845387950054877242007-09-04T00:35:00.000+02:002007-09-04T00:35:00.000+02:00"and it is only really dishonourable to take free ..."and it is only really dishonourable to take free drinks from someone you are about to assassinate."<BR/><BR/>That is truly an honourable statement Andrew.<BR/><BR/>I believe that critics should interact between actors, writers, directors and so on purely for the reason that it does aid in people maintaining a human image of each party. I think that when parties are distanced it sometimes allows too much of a void to develop and believe that it can be detrimental in the long term. I believe that a critic should provide an opportunity for change so that theatre can be improved and that by simply slating a production a critic can bypass an opportunity to facilitate such improvements. For this a degree of understanding should exist between theatre-maker and critic; one that can only be achievable through mutual association and, to some extent, explanation.<BR/><BR/>That is my very humble opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-61466209181537410172007-09-03T21:15:00.000+02:002007-09-03T21:15:00.000+02:00Fortunately having no involvement in the theatre o...Fortunately having no involvement in the theatre other than as an audience member and blogger, it's been fairly easy for me to avoid becoming what could be considered too close to a production. Although having said that, even I have had to decline suggestions of post show drinks on several occasions. <BR/><BR/>It's not that I don't think I could be objective after getting to know someone, it's more that I know I would be, and that sooner or later I'd probably have to give something they were involved in a poor review. Yes, some theatre people may be big enough to take criticism constructively, and it's not really my style to be gratuitously negative anyway, but essentially it's potential grief I can do without. I'm sure I'm missing out on some great and indeed informative evenings, but even that would be at the expense of our aim at View From the Stalls to simply be representative of a typical theatregoer.<BR/><BR/>In fact I'd say it's easier for critics to remain isolated than it is for those theatre bloggers who are directly involved in theatre and who will often find themselves crossing paths with those whose works they will comment on, or even have already commented on. But I agree that they frequently offer the most insightful comments, and I'm sure their thoughts are more appreciated and respected by those involved in the production than my admittedly amateur offerings. I thank them for sharing their thoughts and hope that the sadly inevitable fall-out down the line is not too painful. <BR/><BR/>Me, I'll stick to slipping anonymously away into the night.Statlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05983866226623322962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-16587723425328427212007-09-03T13:55:00.000+02:002007-09-03T13:55:00.000+02:00Christ. That is stringent. I have to say I was im...Christ. That is stringent. I have to say I was impressed by the fact that I didn't see her in a single social situation in Edinburgh this year. She certainly has her principles and sticks by them. My own position re: after-show parties is that you've already seen the show, you know what you think, and it is only really dishonourable to take free drinks from someone you are about to assassinate. <BR/><BR/>I think <A HREF="http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/01/if_you_cant_write_honestly_cha.html" REL="nofollow">Michael's piece that she links to</A> is probably closer to the mark. Two passages leap out. Firstly: "Critics and artists may, if they choose, wine and dine together, sleep together... But, when it comes to the hazardous business of putting words on paper, something strange happens. Old friendships and enmities are temporarily banished and you would, if the need arose, give your own grandmother a stinking review if she committed the cardinal sin: that of perpetrating bad art."<BR/><BR/>And, if anything, more crucially:<BR/>"In writing a biography of Harold Pinter, I happily spent a good deal of time in his company and was given unlimited access to his archives... All I can report is that my admiration for Pinter's work preceded my writing the book."<BR/><BR/>Lyn is perfectly within her rights to avoid tainting herself, as she sees it. On the other hand, I don't think Michael's steely will-to-report is misguided or self-deluding. <BR/><BR/>Beside which, Lyn is primarily talking about actively becoming friends with theatre-makers, while a lot of my piece was informed by suddenly realising that several of my friends had become people whose work I would have been seeing irrespective of knowing them or not.Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-23556502771753028962007-09-03T13:17:00.000+02:002007-09-03T13:17:00.000+02:00Hi Andrew, Very interesting piece. I remember Lyn ...Hi Andrew, <BR/><BR/>Very interesting piece. I remember Lyn Gardener writing something <A HREF="http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/01/at_best_embarrassing_at_worst.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>on the subject earlier in the year, thoughs she stood by maintaining a very clear line between critics and artists.Interval Drinkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09380228642344199084noreply@blogger.com