Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Wednesday, May 04, 2022
Theatre criticism is a quick and dirty act – our views change and so do plays
Theatre | The Guardian: I went to see a play for the second time recently and changed my mind about it. If that sounds like an innocent statement in itself, it is surely a mea culpa for a critic who delivered a damning star-rated judgment the first time around.
2 comments:
Andrew Morris
said...
I am really so opposed to the entire culture around critics and ratings and how much influence they have over the success of a particular body of work, especially in the big cities like New York and Los Angeles. The amount of Ego that one must have to believe that their opinion is sacred and so important that it determines what others will or will not experience just blows my mind. The article talks about a critic who’s opinion of a show changed after she saw it again. I feel like this is so common of an occurrence and really highlights the hypocrisy of critics going to see something once and then determining the shows fate based on what they wrote in the Times the next morning. I just think it’s quite a horrible profession to have of instead of creating something meaningful, they just create negative opinions and hatred. In my opinion art is so subjective to the audience or individual who experiences it. As the saying says, beauty is the the eye of the beholder and what may be horrible for one person could be the most life changing thing for another.
Critiques of theatre have always seemed kind of silly to me in the way that they are held up to the same standard as critiques of other forms of media. I cannot fathom why this is, when as the article states, you don't really get the chance to form your opinion over a span of time. It's an overnight process, and a gut reaction that is aided by your own artistic interpretation of the show. Not to mention, performances change night by night. A show could be a certain way one day, and then the energy is different the next (or if you're unlucky, something breaks). All this is to say that theatre critiques really should not be taken that seriously, in my opinion. honestly, I tend to ask people who saw the show if it was good or not, and that's all the reason I need to see a show.
Another thing in this article that I thought was interesting was the talk about how second viewings put our initial judgements to the test, and how sometimes when we look back on something we loved, viewing it again makes us unable to remember why we hold such love for it. Sometimes, we remember exactly what we loved about it and find new things to love as well. People change, their opinions change, so why shouldn't our views on what we watch change?
2 comments:
I am really so opposed to the entire culture around critics and ratings and how much influence they have over the success of a particular body of work, especially in the big cities like New York and Los Angeles. The amount of Ego that one must have to believe that their opinion is sacred and so important that it determines what others will or will not experience just blows my mind. The article talks about a critic who’s opinion of a show changed after she saw it again. I feel like this is so common of an occurrence and really highlights the hypocrisy of critics going to see something once and then determining the shows fate based on what they wrote in the Times the next morning. I just think it’s quite a horrible profession to have of instead of creating something meaningful, they just create negative opinions and hatred. In my opinion art is so subjective to the audience or individual who experiences it. As the saying says, beauty is the the eye of the beholder and what may be horrible for one person could be the most life changing thing for another.
Critiques of theatre have always seemed kind of silly to me in the way that they are held up to the same standard as critiques of other forms of media. I cannot fathom why this is, when as the article states, you don't really get the chance to form your opinion over a span of time. It's an overnight process, and a gut reaction that is aided by your own artistic interpretation of the show. Not to mention, performances change night by night. A show could be a certain way one day, and then the energy is different the next (or if you're unlucky, something breaks). All this is to say that theatre critiques really should not be taken that seriously, in my opinion. honestly, I tend to ask people who saw the show if it was good or not, and that's all the reason I need to see a show.
Another thing in this article that I thought was interesting was the talk about how second viewings put our initial judgements to the test, and how sometimes when we look back on something we loved, viewing it again makes us unable to remember why we hold such love for it. Sometimes, we remember exactly what we loved about it and find new things to love as well. People change, their opinions change, so why shouldn't our views on what we watch change?
Post a Comment