by Christian De Gré, Artistic Director of Mind The Art Entertainment
Warning: The following article contains creative rantings and ramblings that may offend pretentious critics.
So I just finished composing the music for the renowned theater director Dario D'Ambrosi's new work Bong Bong Bong against the Walls, Ting Ting Ting in our Heads at La MaMa E.T.C.'s 2010 Puppet Festival. It was an incredible project that told the story of the genius of mentally handicapped children in a fairy tale puppet musical fashion. I was thrilled to be working on this piece and once we opened I was looking forward to seeing what the critics thought of this genius work directed by a man who has spent 30 years working with this subject matter. I couldn't have been more naive.
To not get into the gross details I will simply share the highlights of my experience reading these reviews. One reviewer, in the New York Times no less, forgot to mention that there was music in the piece, ignoring that he sat through a one hour musical of which 40 minutes were completely filled with songs and instrumental music. Another reviewer dared say that Mr. D'Ambrosi, who is recognized internationally as the leading authority on theater for the disabled, lacked perspective and insight in his subject matter. (Errr) Another reviewer presumed to build connections between the musical structure and aesthetic choices of the piece that he felt he had a great ear for but anyone with any musical knowledge would know he had no idea of what he was talking about. However the one that wins the award as the most irresponsible and lazy critique must go to the Village Voice who decided that they would publish, in a major city-wide publication, a review in BULLET POINTS with such creative insights as 'the origami frogs appear to be very well folded.'
To those who do not know, theater survives largely because of reviews. The shows that make it to Broadway (usually after a painstaking 8 year journey) arrive because along the way someone gave them a star review in a major publication. If a piece gets a bad review it is almost impossible to recover, and ticket sales plunge if a major publication looks down on your work. Because we live in an information obsessed and media saturated society the people look to reviews to choose from the plethora of activities at their fingertips what they should do. They trust these reviews, put faith that these professionals know what they are talking about and then proceed to follow their advice. As artists we recognize the power that the press holds over our careers and futures. To quote the Artistic Director of La MaMa E.T.C. "you get a positive New York Times Review and you get to eat for three years." It is because of this fact that we, as artists and producers, become obsessed with getting press to our shows. So we embark upon a journey, we woo and bribe, we spend thousands of dollars on a pricey PR Manager and a Publicist, we dress up, we walk them to their seat, we almost literally do anything they want but prostitute ourselves (hopefully) in order to get them to our shows and do whatever is in our power to make them happy. These "journalists" then proceed to "evaluate" our piece and then share with the "common" people of the world, who are in theory much more limited in creative endeavors having not made a career of this, their views and recommend what people should or should not spend their hard working money on. We artists then sit ALL DAY and NIGHT by a computer and a newsstand, with coffee, whiskey and cigarettes in hand, waiting anxiously to see what these "trained professionals" have to say about our art. This is an excruciating affair, painful for all involved. Finally we see the listings pop up on Google and in print and we gasp, fear and excitement coursing through our veins, and we read. We read what these "great minds," who make quite a bit of money with the major papers, have to say about our bohemian poverty stricken creative endeavors. This moment for us in a culmination of not just however many years we have worked on a piece, or how many things we have sacrificed to make it come to fruition, but is a culmination of all our dreams and struggles since we were a fetus with a vision. And then we read... What do we get more often than not? We get rewarded with a half assed review written two weeks after they saw the show that talks about nothing in our piece but how well-folded the ORIGAMI FROGS ARE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Surely this must be a one off event. This can't be the norm can it? Well, let us take another example. I spent 9 years of my life with my good friend and co-writer Paul Deakin, creating a musical Spellbound- A Musical Adventure. We opened this summer at the
So these horror stories, and I have hundreds, are just the beginning of a larger set of questions. What does it take to be a reviewer? I have been asked by two publications if I would like to review, and while I now see that I am probably more qualified (I actually work in the arts) to do so I have declined because I don't see myself as a "responsible, trained and qualified objective journalist." Also what has happened in our modern day and age that we have given so much power to the reviewer? Why did we do this? Why must art be funded based upon the opinion of those who have more of an inclination to write a satirical or unnecessarily mean review over a proper critical analysis? Now there are a few responsible ones out there, of course, but even the best of them fall to this exaggerated hyperbolized tabloid style of writing quite often. My favorite quotes from these fine, established fellows include "the cast often performs with disillusion, as if they are attending a terrible Halloween party, dressed only in straightjackets and are forced to stay against their wishes," and "you could go down to your basement, eat two packs of cheese puffs in darkness and vomit, or you could watch this piece, the end result would be the same" and my favorite from the great Ben Brantley "You will have the occasion to learn that Romeo is not circumcised." Bravo! Is this the responsible, objective journalism we have all been waiting for? No! It's irony, satire, comedy, vulgarity and scandalized explosive commentary meant to amuse rather than inform. The great Joe Papp, founder of the Public Theater, comes to mind, screaming down the phone at a reviewer of A Chorus Line decades ago "Are you trying to fuck me? Why are you doing this? You will never set foot in my theater again, you pretentious dick! You fuck me again and I'll kill you."
So what is to be done? Is it too much to hope for someone to attend my show and see things objectively and whether they like it or not write appropriate thought out criticism? I guess it is. Meanwhile I guess I have no choice but to keep feeding the machine and keep searching for my New York Times Review that will feed me for 3 years. I suppose I just have to keep gambling and throwing up shows and eventually I'll get lucky. As you see I have realized it’s just a matter of luck, seeing as I see no logical way to put art up and expect constructive feedback in this modern age.
Hmmm... maybe if I give them cheese puffs and mountain dew at their seats they'll like my work more.
“Asking a working writer what he thinks about critics is like asking a lamppost what it feels about dogs”- John Osborne (Playwright/Producer)
In college my play writing professor started the first day of class saying. Dramaturg's you will divide in two before your four years are up. Half of you will go on to create, the other half will go on to kill. Criticism can be a productive and integral part of the creative process if it is done with that intention in mind.
ReplyDelete'the origami frogs appear to be very well folded.' -I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD MAKE A PLAQUE OF THIS IN OUR NEW SPACE AND PUT IT ON T-SHIRTS- IT REALLY IS, IN ITS OWN WAY, A LITTLE GEM OF WISDOM FOR DEPRESS...ED ARTISTS. ITLL REMIND US TO STAY GROUNDED AND HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR
ReplyDelete-Also we should call these comments- vomments- christian misspelled when he told me to write a comment...but it is kind of funny- leading to people pretentious opinions- "vomments" like "vomits"
I feel like the idea of having constructive critics...people who make a career out of analysis, theory, deconstruction, and review is becoming extinct...for many, it is a lobby- simply a waiting room- for them, on their way to being a director, actor, producer, or writer. Criticism, in essence, is a beneficial step for them because they get to cut down the competition, making more room for their own work, getting people to follow and laugh at their reviews and possibly come see their own little shows they are putting up (it is somewhat like a ninja's way of marketing themselves). Of course, it is also an outlet for them to massage their own ego and take out their frustrations and insecurities with their own careers and lives on others. Because everyone feels they have what it takes to create and so they go for that, when they are sadly mistaken, they fall back on reviewing other people's work. This automatically puts the review at a disadvantage, and even beyond that- if you create- I do not feel you should review present work...I am a traditionalist- I do not believe in Directors/ editing their own work without the guidance of a career editor, that would be like an author doing such and that thought is just ludicrous....ofcourse review projects of the past- Scorsese is a theorist and a historian and a damn good one...but being creative and reviewing projects of the present causes a prejudice because, even if not consciously-subconsciously, you are competing with them. THEY ARE YOUR CONTEMPORARIES- I FEEL LIKE THAT MAKES AS MUCH SENSE AS A PLAYER IN A SOCCER MATCH REFEREEING THE GAME!
ReplyDeleteThe other reason it is rare is because the national epidemic of "lack of reading"...people don't read theory books any longer, study other famous criticism...there was a time where there was criticism published on CRITICISM. Critics would critique other critics' criticisms...that is an art onto itself and one that my father, a professor, still is known for doing. In doing this it balances the scale- its like a "checks and balances", of sorts.
ReplyDeletePeople seem to no longer thirst for knowledge outside of what they see on tv and their short attention span allows, as well as, what they formulate in their own minds. Its an epidemic of pure narcissism.
The idea that we know it all and have everything we need to do everything and be successful is destroying the very fabric that clothes our souls- ART! The fact that critics today can review online for arts website and do not need a DEGREE IN THEATER OR FILM STUDIES OR CRITICISM OR JOURNALISM...is terrifying. In terms of being artists...I don't feel you need a degree or that a degree means anything...you cant TEACH someone how to be a good director or artist - all you can teach is grammar of the art form...But to be a critic...that is part of academia- you need a degree. These critics who are not coming from a "theory" or "studies" background, have no concept of the grammar for that art form...SO HOW CAN THEY CRITIQUE IT- THATS LIKE ME TRYING TO CRITIQUE HUXLEY AND I DONT KNOW WHAT COMMAS ARE FOR, HOW TO READ CERTAIN WORDS, ETC.
the days are dark....
Its interesting who these online or print publications hire to be "reviewers".. like NYtheater.com hires anyone really. People who dont have experience writing and they send them to shows, and they write crap. It just sucks.
ReplyDeleteThis brings to mind the notion of a responsible journal. Mind The Art should embark on a journal that both nourishes the growth of the artist and their relationship to their audience via constructive criticism and also allow people the opportunity to criticize the criticism. It opens up the forum of creative discussions, much needed in todays stale art scene, and allows people to share ideas on a specific art piece. This would be of tremendous value to the artist and their audience as well as to the critic for their own growth as a curator of the art itself. This is something we must do.
ReplyDeleteNik Kourtis: Great work on this Christian. I fear the days of thoughtful theater critique are over - especially with the "hey I have a blog so therefore I am qualified to critique" world that we live in.
ReplyDeleteI think that these ideas all lead to precarious slippery slopes. If, for instance, we desire critics that are experts in the field that they critique, then we may, likely unconsiously, mount work to appease the critics. Then we become artists creating art to be appreciated by artists. Art for Art's sake, or, Art made to please those that create it, and not those that are meant to be enlightened by it. Art cannot be reserved for the elite, but must speak to the people through the gamut and spectrum of experience. I do agree that, ideally, if someone is to hire a critic, that person should be a professional, well-versed, and unbiased. However, in this culture of consumer reviews, yelp, blogs, rants, raves, and facebook, we cannot even for a minute consider it possibility to limit who has a voice for or against our efforts. That being said, we do good work. People that see that work are aware that we do good work. Hopefully they tell the world, as in this world, you can. To put artistic work out there into the eye of the public is, in and of itself, to open ourselves up to criticism. This criticism can be positive or negative, helpful or ruinous. Our goal must be, then to do good work, which we do, and to continue to do good work, which we will. We cannot stop people from analyzing our work, with a filter of whatever they might be going through or working toward. What we can do, on the other hand, is take advantage of our current culture of "everybody has a voice" and drown out the prevelant, mainstream negativity. Who's to say that we have to listen to any certain critic when we all have not only the right, but the means, to make our own voice heard. We are responsible for our own destiny, dignity, and integrity. If we keep those three things in mind, and increase the volume and reach of our voice, and those of our supporters, then we can stand a chance to prevail with the support of, and even in spite of, a massive bombardment of critical feedback.
ReplyDeleteI agree Joe and understand what you are saying but the effective problem that comes from that kind freedom is it promotes a neglect of striving to attain knowledge- an appathy of sorts....what I mean by that is if someone is allowed to be a critic that is heard and can review for something as prestigious as Fringe and not have any kind of real background or degree...then it is telling everyone else, essentially, you don't need to study or work to be an authority- if you clikc your mouse, you just are- or at least by the majority, thats how you will be percieved...Im not talking of making art for the intellectuals Im talking of those who critique us should have a background whether it is in commercial theater or abstract or surrealist, or all and in a sense, its worse than having a normal everyday working joe who isnt in theater, critique (which I always do for my screenplays or fine cuts of my films because I trust their opinions), because these critics are our contemporaries- which by nature makes them nonobjective...Critics are a guide or teacher for the audience that doesnt have a background- they condense or often elaborate on our work- which is why they need a background-they need to know the grammar and how to dissect, what to look for (if they don't, they will be misinterpreting things, people will take their words as gospel, and brush certain art aside.)Plus if they are supposed to be giving a somewhat objective opinion (as objective as ones' opinions can be) they should not be our contemporaries. Critics bridge the gap between the two groups- those in art and who have the deep understandings of it and other people who like to view it as a hobby...its like a teacher...a teacher takes theories, lessons, etc...and condenses ideas for students who are younger or not as well versed on the subject, to understand...and tells them either the importance or unimportance of knowing a certain thing...Whatever their likes for certain theories or dislikes, they have a background and go to school before becoming a teacher. This is to protect the integrity of what they teach and who they teach it to, or much knowledge would be brushed aside. In this way, the critic is a lot like a teacher- they are the intermiediary- telling people- "You can trust when I say not to go to this show because I have a background in this stuff- Im a critic- I am here to guide you through what piece of theater is importnat and what isnt" and as with being a teacher (which we have only now been really taught to question and many still dont), because nobody questions "well, he's critquing fringe, he must know what he's talking about!" and checks the background of the critic, they believe his word is dogma- HELL AT TIMES I BELIEVE A CRITICS WORD IS DOGMA UNLESS I AM REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE ARTISTS WORK-ITS AN IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION ATTITUDE IMPRINTED ON OUR PSYCHE BY SOCIETY. I never questioned whether my teachers were certified to teach me or not...it usually goes without saying...This is true to the point that off of ONE review, an investor- who never saw spellbound, was willing to pull out...why?
ReplyDeleteBecause the faith in the "critic" was more overpowering than the faith in the question of an individuals personal preferences, prejudices, and qualifications... A true critic, as I believe is true with a real writer or director of film, literature, or theater, is not one that just has a passion for elite or intellectual art...they also have a strong appreciation and understanding for commercial art, abstract art, absurdist art...and understands its working (this is true in every medium that has more than one genre of expression)- they should be versed in all to critique all ESPECIALLY for journals, publications and websites that are more of an umbrella for the medium they cover and are not specific to any one genre...as is true in terms of the critics we are speaking of and the publications and websites they are employed by.
ReplyDeleteThat all being said...I understand where you are coming from and agree, Joe, that art should not be made for the critics and the elite should not be the only ones to decide what is good or not good in terms of art, which is for all people- I believe in freedom...the problem is we need a balance and that, generally, from comes from equal amounts "education" and "humility" (not letting ego sway your views)...we are on the opposite extreme of the "elite" critiquing, right now- as oppose to a hundred years ago...
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, on these websites, they should post a big disclaimer-
WE DO NOT STAND BY WHETHER CRITICS WHO PUBLISH ON OUR SITE ARE QUALIFIED ACADEMICALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, ETC. PLEASE DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH INTO THE CRITIC AND TAKE THEIR REVIEWS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT...the reason they don't do this is because they would lose money and readers- they hire these unqualified critics to save money from hiring the really qualified ones and still present a professional image...this does not apply to the big "historical" (meaning" been around and known for some time") publications because in that case, I have no understanding or answer.
Celeste Moratti: I second all you're saying in your post. We should stop putting our lives in these people's hands. the whole reviewer/artist relationship started as an attempt to support the arts, and now it's just smothering them.
ReplyDeleteAlessio, I understand everything that you're saying, and agree with every word of it. And I feel that what we've done here is a good job of shining light on a known problem. But I am not interested in just illuminating and discussing the visions of shortcomings and problems that we're all aware of, that reduces us to merely a group of artists complaining. The problem exists, and I would like to start our work there, instead of bringing up ideals and precedents as though the implimentation was all we lack. I would rather be a group taking action than a group that only bashes the actions of others (here, critics), even when the deserve it (here, critics). And to be clear, I don't think that that is what we are, as a group or even in the context of this blog. We look for answers. My concern lies in finding what action to take. That's why I suggested taking advantage of the opportunity to become and encourage our own critics. However, Alessio, I really like the idea of pushing for a disclaimer. Is there a critic's union? What entity could we petition for such a disclaimer? What example could we set? Is there some other action that we could take? Perhaps we could track critics, comparing thier stats. We could see how often they like things, the relationship between the things that they like, and we could compile backgrounds on them. Making thier trends and training public could be a regulator in itself. I don't know what the answer is, but if we could find it, we could do good for arts, artists, and the public, not to mention those critics with credentials and integrity that we can still respect in that whirlwind of power, judgement, and shaking heads that we call "critics".
ReplyDeleteI totally agree, Joe...and I am unsure about whether their are unions or not....but you have a great point, maybe this is something to look into...If a critic has enough power to critique our art and destroy well than artists should have their own critics (an outside objective 3rd party) to either support or bash their criticism, creating balance again...maybe we should go into talks about starting something like this (its almost like having two opposing lawyers The defense and the prosecutor)....Our critics we'll dig up the critics history, study, prejudices, bring it to lite....this is all something that our financiers would be interested in because it is almost a way of securing their investments.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all this I must repeat:"This brings to mind the notion of a responsible journal. Mind The Art should embark on a journal that both nourishes the growth of the artist and their relationship to their audience via constructive criticism and also allow people the opportunity to criticize the criticism. It opens up the forum of creative discussions, much needed in todays stale art scene, and allows people to share ideas on a specific art piece. This would be of tremendous value to the artist and their audience as well as to the critic for their own growth as a curator of the art itself. This is something we must do." Let's get working on this and open it with our new Festival and Theater this summer! Thanks all for a great discussion
ReplyDelete