Thank you for your response. It is still of interest to me that many times the reviewers do not discuss the dance itself. I would like to see reviewers elevate their craft rather than discuss the age or body flab or personal like or dislike of any one artist.
I agree. Someone told me that there is actually an opinion published recently on another site that promotes reviews of choreography instead of performances... Weird.
If is unfair that anyone artist no matter who they be have to see an personal comments in a major paper with a huge audience and not be able to respond in kind. I think that is more my point.
True. However, that's one of the facets that come with being an artist. Movie personalities I think suffer the most -- so many movies bomb before they even make it to the screen, along with the reputations of many fine artists. That's one reason CriticalDance was started -- to give people an alternative voice.
Art, ticket sales, and peoples personal careers should not be affected by the words of one reviewer.
I agree with you on that one. Maybe it's the reviewer's responsibility to choose the approach carefully rather than write from an emotional place. Even reviews of bad performances can be interesting if the reviewer is talented enough. Some of the best reviews I've read are of works the critics didn't like. This particular review could have benefitted from a bit more creativity and compassion.
This particular review mentioned nothing about the dance itself. Almost as if they had not been there. It was a controversial piece but the audience all around me loved it. I listened many comments both nights.
For the record, I liked both works by the Kabaniaev twins. One was direct and honest. The other was creative and promoted the qualities of the dancers.