stuart - i didn't read croce's article
- i only read ABOUT it, ad infinitum!<P>it stirred up a big controversy, not so much about the WORK, as about the trend towards those kinds of works.<P>because zane was well-known and had recently died, there was a raw edge to the whole scenario that caused people to be emotional in their reactions. this is part of what croce was objecting to - or at least drawing people's attention to...<P>i would stand by my view above - without having read her piece - that she has a right to write about a trend in performances, a style of works, without necessarily making any specific reference to any of the works themselves.<P>just like THIS post, really. i haven't read her piece, but i CAN fairly comment on a person's right to have certain opinions, and to write about them.....<P>and re clement crisp - i just find it hard to believe he would disturb other audience members in order to leave DURING a work - IF he did, that in itself says a lot....<P>the question then becomes whether or not one writes about it......certainly you can write about what you DID see, but not about what you didn't....<P>recently i was unavoidably late for a performance of swan lake, by a visiting russian company, due to a public transport problem. seeing the performance again was out of the question. i missed the whole of Act I!
<P>i worried about what to do - but after stressing out, decided there was no problem. i saw 3/4 of the ballet - i found plenty to write about in those acts. <P>i didn't 'admit' (in my review) to missing the first act, but i didn't feel any need to refer to it either. <P>i don't believe that seeing Act I would have changed my perception of the acts i DID see, and the overall product, at all. i made sure i saw photographs of the prologue - set, costumes, and the cast list; i enquired of other people their opinions, especially of the pas de trois (the main choreographic item in the first act), and then i formed my own opinions about the rest - and 'the rest' is all i wrote about. <P>it's the only time i've ever written about a performance which i missed some of, and i have no hesitation in admitting HERE that i missed some of it, because i am quite sure my judgement was not compromised by that.<P>to have brought this up, in the review, would have made a fuss over something personal which was irrelevant to the subject matter. <P>if i could have seen it again, i would have. if it had been a triple bill by an unknown (to me) company, and i had missed one work, that would have been different altogether.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by grace (edited August 15, 2000).]