I wonder. Isn't vitality self-evident? If you have to TELL people that a thing is vital, doesn't that suggest that the thing is not, in fact, vital -- or the people who need it would already know that?
Thanks for the note. I don't mean to speak for Mr. Rapp but I think he means that shows that have a certain energy, wit or intelligence are often dismissed as containing nothing worthwhile. So the vitality that you or i would see when we go to the show is not represented in a review of the play.
After struggling with the concept of criticism this week (mostly meditating on the horrible power of people like Isherwood) I had the idea of starting a campaign to ignore critics. Get as many people as you can to agree not to read any criticism for a year. It would mostly be a publicity stunt, but if you really want to scare the hell out of people in the media-- the best way is to ignore them. Wouldn't it be great if audiences just went back to trusting their own instincts, word of mouth, and just plain taking a chance on something new? I don't think all criticism is bad, and it can be instructive and illuminating. The problem is, almost none of it is. It is often a leech feeding on culture. Often, it is a destructive force. NY critics in particular should make it their mission to find and champion small works that would otherwise go unrecognized. What they wind up doing is savaging tiny off-off plays that will disappear forever in a week's time anyway. (Sorry for the rant)
3 comments:
I wonder. Isn't vitality self-evident? If you have to TELL people that a thing is vital, doesn't that suggest that the thing is not, in fact, vital -- or the people who need it would already know that?
Hi Meegan,
Thanks for the note. I don't mean to speak for Mr. Rapp but I think he means that shows that have a certain energy, wit or intelligence are often dismissed as containing nothing worthwhile. So the vitality that you or i would see when we go to the show is not represented in a review of the play.
After struggling with the concept of criticism this week (mostly meditating on the horrible power of people like Isherwood) I had the idea of starting a campaign to ignore critics. Get as many people as you can to agree not to read any criticism for a year. It would mostly be a publicity stunt, but if you really want to scare the hell out of people in the media-- the best way is to ignore them. Wouldn't it be great if audiences just went back to trusting their own instincts, word of mouth, and just plain taking a chance on something new? I don't think all criticism is bad, and it can be instructive and illuminating. The problem is, almost none of it is. It is often a leech feeding on culture. Often, it is a destructive force. NY critics in particular should make it their mission to find and champion small works that would otherwise go unrecognized. What they wind up doing is savaging tiny off-off plays that will disappear forever in a week's time anyway. (Sorry for the rant)
Post a Comment