jen, this is what i was saying about emotional involvement - if one is emotionally involved, one may well not be able to separate the one factual task from the other 'opinion' task - as one has an opinion or strong friendly bias, in a sense, about the person and wanting to support their work, before seeing it (not necessarily 'you' - but talking hypothetically here.)<P>but an intelligent individual CAN differentiate between fact and opinion. (please...., someone..., whoever you may be: let's not complicate this by talking about how 'facts' are perceived....i'm talking here about 'this company was formed in 1955' or 'this ballet was first choreographed by kenneth macmillan', etc...)
<P>stuart - a clarification please? - to be crystal clear here, because it concerns me that this thread has now become a part of the literature, on the issue of 'critics who review performances they didn't see'...a quick skim of this thread would now add to the perception of some people that 'this happens', when, as i have stated above, i have never actually seen it occur in 10 years of dance writing and learning/researching about same.<P>my question is: <I>did that critic YOU mention actually REVIEW the work - OR just describe it, or mention it?</I> ....what i am getting at here, is like the business with arlene croce and bill t jones. without buying into that whole issue (PLEASE!!!!
) THAT is often referred to as someone (famous and an important critic) "who reviewed a show she didn't see" - when in fact she did not 'review' it at all. she wrote ABOUT it, and about why she would not go to see it, or why she didn't find it appropriate to critique - but she did not review it. however i have seen this, many many times, referred to as her having written a review of a work she did not see.<P>this is a distinction i am battling hard to make in this thread, in the cause of honesty - as with michael m, who talks about someone missing a show, but also about someone (else) leaving before the end...not at all the same kettle of fish....<P>i am making a plea for fairness and honesty, for facts, rather than malicious gossip.<P>wolf - i am completely 'with' you here, which i guess is what got me angry in the first place - because the question posed by azlan is unanswerable, subjective and relative. (nevertheless, it has certainly provoked a top-rate discussion, in which azlan's contribution is especially valuable, IMO.) what does 'well-informed' mean? HOW well-informed is 'well-informed'? does it matter? why the assumption that a critic must be 'well-informed'? 'well-informed' about what? i have heard it argued that it is more important that a critic is well-informed about the craft of writing, than about their subject matter....so thanks to you for this bit!:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"What does it take to be a 'well-informed' critic?" My answer is it<BR>depends on the audience, and it may not even matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>