AMERICAN THEATRE: When we talk about critics, we tend to talk about “criticism.” We don’t differentiate or categorize; we treat all of it as a nuance-free lump. But the act of labeling can do some wonderful, mysterious things. The great reviewer-director Harold Clurman wrote that “the primary obligation of the critic is to define the character of the object he is called upon to judge.” Another way of putting it: When you’re in Eden, marveling at Creation all around you, the first job is naming the animals.
3 comments:
This articulee distinguishes different types of criticism that theatrical critics may comment on within a review. I found this article super interesting and insightful. In another class I am taking, we spent an entire class talking about the stasis of evaluation and critics or criticism fall within that stasis. It’s so interesting to know that there are so many forms of criticism and those different forms can apply to criteria of evaluation and how this article ties into a non-drama class I am currently in. The contextualizer, the diarist, the encyclopedist, the impressionist, the inwardist, the proselytizer, the raisonneur, the scourge, and the chimera are all important critics within the world or writing and theatre. The author of this piece acknowledges this. In addition to acknowledgement, the author encourages people, in a call to action sort of fashion, to embark on a wide-ranging publishing program. The author believes we need more critics. And what accompanies more critics? More writing and more like!
I have always been interested in the lives that theatre critics live. I always imagined that critics have this incredible gift of getting to see broadway shows for free, and then either making or breaking the career of the show. However, after reading this article I have found that critics stem across the board regarding their roles and responsibilities. Some critics have more of a role in the accuracy of the play, rather than than critiquing the acting or design elements. This makes so much sense, as many people have varying experiences in various styles of theatre. I was fascinated with the role of the contextualizer, as it was described as an anthropologist for theatre which is the perfect analogy. The article also describes a through process that goes beyond the experience of actually being in the space, and the impact that the show has outside of the theatre which is a crucial aspect to theatre.
I think this article is so insightful because I am also guilty of lumping “critics” under one label without acknowledging the different types. I did not realize that there was a difference between a theatre critic and a drama critic, nor did I even consider that those were two different entities. I feel like in a way, theatre critics kind of have to be drama critics because the text can unavoidably affect the character of a performed event. With these new specific elements discussed in this article, I have much more of an understanding and appreciation of what dramaturgs do. Shoutout to y’all. Theatre critics need to be on the same dramaturgical level as the creative team of the show they’re seeing, which requires critical work on both ends. I also like how the author compared the work of theatre critics to being in the Garden of Eden: you have to acknowledge the things you notice, whether they’re good or bad.
Post a Comment