Seth's Blog: I know what they used to be for. A decade ago, there really was no way to tell if a movie, a book or a play was worth your time before you paid up. A professional review could be a valuable signal, a way to save people time and money.
Along the way, professional reviewers also decided that they could alter the culture by speaking up. Since creators of culture are often sensitive to what the critics have to say, establishing critical baselines (particularly when you are a powerful arbiter of what sells and what doesn't) became a real function of the critic.
8 comments:
well i think the answer to the question of "will it work properly" totally depands. As we all know, sometimes reviews just cheat on you. there are tons of comments under Youtube movie review can prove that. people always think this movie or show is really good because a lot of reviews base on high-level technology, which leads to a better vision effect. people may think that this production is as fancy as they saw in the review. but tryth is, getting rid of technology, everything is just normal.
I think this article brings up some really interesting things to question. First of all, I wonder how reviews can affect artists. Humans naturally look for other human approval, and this includes in their professional work. For theatre in particular, it must be difficult for the actors and the creative team to look at reviews and question their decisions in the piece. Do reviews alter an actors performance? Should actors be paying attention to reviews at all? These are all questions without right or wrong answers. In my opinion, I believe it is important for artists to gain feedback, in a positive way. For example, in Design class, we constantly receive feedback from our professor and our classmates. Having this experience is so valuable and important, as it helps us to grow as artists and as people. In the professional world, I believe that this kind of feedback is important and necessary, as long as it does not negatively impact an artist's creative process.
The most interesting aspect for me in this article was the change in perspective from the professional review being the primary form of objective opinion influencing audience behavior to a more democratic system where any audience member can have their voice heard (though not necessarily in the New York Times). Maybe theatrical productions need a site akin to RottenTomatoes for movies - a place that aggregates critical opinion from both the professionals and average members of the site to provide a condensed analysis of the piece. Crowdsourcing and aggregating critical opinion may be able to provide more targeted feedback for the creators, while allowing for a greater informed ticket-buying public. The article raises issues over where to lay credibility of opinion, and I see that as an issue, but think it's going to be up to each patron whether to trust the professional's viewpoint, the public's or an aggregate, so why not offer them all those together?
Don't forget that professional reviews also spark conversation - even if its only an internal one. If I read a review that disagrees with my opinions, it helps me to solidify what I think and helps me to understand why I think what I think.
This author seems to be in the “professional reviewers are obsolete thanks to the internet” camp. This is fairly clear when he chooses three arbitrary reasons one might listen to professional reviewers and proceeds to poke holes in each reason. What this author and others in his camp fail to recognize is the authority of professional reviewers. Out of the millions of people who think they have the makings of a good reviewer, there is a reason that the New York Times or any other reputable newspaper has chosen the critics they have. These people have been immersed in their chosen field for most of their lives, and know the indications of high quality art far better than your average Joe. A person who has seen 500 productions and has learned to look at each aspect of a production (writing, directing, acting, design, lyrics, music, etc.) separately is going to produce a far more universal and authoritative review than a blogger who has seen 50 shows in his life. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but the opinions of an expert should be heeded much more than those with no expertise, otherwise we face the degradation of art at the hands of the masses.
I definitely think that reviews are important (similar to what Pia said in igniting conversation and reassuring us in our opinions) but I am curious as to why some people take them so seriously. It makes sense to an extent-- people do choose what shows they see oftentimes based on reviews, and in the performing arts industry it can be a great way to see how other's perceive our art. But I think the article makes a good point about what you read and how seriously you take it, because it can definitely be a waste of your talent, time and energy reading certain reviews. Reviews are the opinions of few people who happen to be quite articulate, but they do not always represent the masses accurately.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but the opinions of an expert should be heeded much more than those with no expertise, otherwise we face the degradation of art at the hands of the masses."
What makes an expert? Is it someone who is paid to write their opinions? Is it someone who has seen over 100 shows? Is it someone who has worked in the industry and has an understanding of what goes into a production? I think an 'expert' is really hard to define, so how do you decide who to listen to and who not to?
Reviewers were supposed to tell you how good a show is and perhaps comment on the themes of the show. After that I agree with the author’s assertion that along the way, “Professional reviewers also decided that they could alter the culture by speaking up.” Reviewers started to go amiss, then they felt that their review were more important than the original work. I would like to maintain (and this opinion will be very unpopular) that a reviewer is part of the advertising process. They should be honest but they should also encourage their audience to GO TO SHOWS. If they maintain that, “ALL THEATRE SUCKS” I think that they are damaging to the entire industry. I have gone to see shows based on a review and I have stayed away for the same reason. But I have loved shows the reviews hated and vice-versa. Reviewers should be honest but at the same time do their best to strengthen the theatre in their community. If they hate a show, great; go find a show they love and help others find out about it. As soon as they start proselytizing their POV then they have missed the mark.
Post a Comment