CriticalDance Forum

I find that the main advantage of having a background in dance is that the critic can easily employ the terminology, or recognize that a performer beautifully executed a sequence that is not as easy as it looks. Other than that, much of dance criticism seems to be simply of matter of differing tastes.

Speaking of tastes, allow me to refer to what LMCTech posted a while ago:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I at least will explain why I thought it was so bad. I hate it when a critic trashes soemthing and doesn't give any constructive feedback. Then it's just gossip, not criticism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree with LMCTech - the critic should justify what he/she dislikes with valid reasons, making reference to the work in question. But personally, I'm quite wary of the notion of "constructive feedback." It seems that there are times (not always) when the critic, in giving "constructive feedback", plays a game of this-is-what-I-would-have-done-if-I-were-the-dancer/choreographer/set designer/lighting designer/composer. It's one thing to say, for instance, that a certain section lacked dramatic impact for whatever reason; it's quite another thing to say that a certain section would have been better if so-and-so had come in at a specific moment and did *this* with his arm and did *that* with his leg. <BR>

That's a very good point, Malcolm (parenthetically -- which, of course, is why I put it in parentheses -- that's also a good way for directors and choreographers to work with designers).

I've learned that there's very little dancers can do with reviewer's feedback. They will notice something and often think they know the cause of whatever it was they didn't like. Usually, the actual cause is quite different.<BR>

Robert Brustein's visit to Melbourne -- not exactly about dance criticism, but worth reading:

More...

<small>[ 10-07-2002, 03:52: Message edited by: Malcolm Tay ]</small>

Hi I'm really intereasted in this discussion coz for my dissertation i'm looking at how critics create an 'experience' for the reader. I'm looking at phenomenology as well. Well i really think that a critics purpose is to give an essense of the work of art. A good critic to me should create sensory kinesthetic images in the mind of the reader. It should help them feel the critics own experience yet allow them to read the work for itself. It obvious that some critics really do slate everything but in a way who gives them the right. If you think a work is bad it may be hard to be constantly positive but everything should be looked at and justified. We can never capture dance in writing but we can try! Any ideas arguments comments email me or post!!!

Poison Pens and Pirouettes
by Lewis Whittington for Ballet-Dance Magazine

I certainly don't blame anybody being suspicious of journalists today. Even if he gives the regular stable of dance writers the thumbs down, that is not what is objectionable; rather, it is the way in which he does it. The festival program is not the professional forum in which to attack critics.

click for more

Well, I don't think critics should be "attacked" anywhere. For one thing, it's a losing battle (the person who controls the printing press always gets the last word); for another thing, it's counter-productive.

...But what would be an appropriate forum in which to discuss the critics' work? Did Mr. Simonet have another place in which to voice his frustration?

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A good critic, in any "art" form, creates a verbal bridge between the artistic spectacle and those who seek more informaation about the performance.