File spoon-archives/puptcrit.archive/puptcrit_2003/puptcrit.0305, message 6


From: "Mary Robinette Kowal" <mary-AT-otherhandproductions.com>
Subject: PUPT: Re: Brantley vs. Barnes on Symphonie Fantastique
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:38:05 -0700


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Well said, Mr. Bell. 

How nice, and ironic, to enjoy such a reasoned critic of critics.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: john bell
  To: puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:39 PM
  Subject: PUPT: Brantley vs. Barnes on Symphonie Fantastique


          I think that good theater criticism has nothing to do with whether the critic likes the piece or not; that's pretty much irrelevent.  Uninformed and superficial praise is just as bad as (or worse than) an uninformed and superficial slam.
          I think good theater criticism includes the following:
          a. a good description of what's going on,
          b. a good sense of the context and traditions in which the piece is created,
          c. an evaluation of the various elements of the performance, and
          d. an overall sense of how the piece succeeds as art.
          If we compare Ben Brantley's review of Symphonie Fantastique with Clive Barnes's, we can see a bit more depth in the analysis, and, interestingly enough, a much better description of the action.  Notice that Brantley acknowledges that a connection to Disney's Fantasia could be made, but that such a connection does not get to the center of Twist's work.  Brantley does not stop at the superficial, but wants to find out what's most important about Twist's goals.  Barnes dismisses the possibility that Twist might be after something that has artistic depth.
          I don't like a lot of Brantley's criticism, but certainly he's got more on the ball with this review than Barnes has with his.  And Mary Robinette's puptcrit review of Symphonie Fantastique is in itself much better than Barnes's because she takes care to consider a variety of aspects of the show, and explains how she finds them wanting. 
          I think theater criticism is fun and challenging.  Its purpose is not to figure what's "bad" and what's "good," because rarely are artworks so easily defined, but to understand how art forms develop in particular societies in particular moments.

  jb

HTML VERSION:

Well said, Mr. Bell. 
 
How nice, and ironic, to enjoy such a reasoned critic of critics.
----- Original Message -----
From: john bell
To: puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:39 PM
Subject: PUPT: Brantley vs. Barnes on Symphonie Fantastique

        I think that good theater criticism has nothing to do with whether the critic likes the piece or not; that's pretty much irrelevent.  Uninformed and superficial praise is just as bad as (or worse than) an uninformed and superficial slam.
        I think good theater criticism includes the following:
        a. a good description of what's going on,
        b. a good sense of the context and traditions in which the piece is created,
        c. an evaluation of the various elements of the performance, and
        d. an overall sense of how the piece succeeds as art.
        If we compare Ben Brantley's review of Symphonie Fantastique with Clive Barnes's, we can see a bit more depth in the analysis, and, interestingly enough, a much better description of the action.  Notice that Brantley acknowledges that a connection to Disney's Fantasia could be made, but that such a connection does not get to the center of Twist's work.  Brantley does not stop at the superficial, but wants to find out what's most important about Twist's goals.  Barnes dismisses the possibility that Twist might be after something that has artistic depth.
        I don't like a lot of Brantley's criticism, but certainly he's got more on the ball with this review than Barnes has with his.  And Mary Robinette's puptcrit review of Symphonie Fantastique is in itself much better than Barnes's because she takes care to consider a variety of aspects of the show, and explains how she finds them wanting. 
        I think theater criticism is fun and challenging.  Its purpose is not to figure what's "bad" and what's "good," because rarely are artworks so easily defined, but to understand how art forms develop in particular societies in particular moments.

jb
--- Personal replies to: "Mary Robinette Kowal" --- List replies to: puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- Admin commands to: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- Archives at: http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005