Comments on Letter of the Day
It doesn’t really matter how much ass people have busted to make their shows. Effort counts for something, but results count for more.
Nice.
god, you're an asshole kiley. pull up a leather chair in your warm den of bookcases filled with the canon and listen to me count the ways. afterward you can tell me all about the many, many books you've read about race so you can have the last word and feel better about yourself
What's ridiculous about Brendan's answers? All but the last are serious and true.
@2
I know it's natural for you to cry about everything (this is a big topic today, liberals), but why how do you let some artsy fartsy sheethead get to you so much?
You know what's going to make your next play/dance/whatever even shittier? Letting negative reviews and childish antics get in the way of your own acknowledgment of hard work performed. Spend a little less time caring what critics have to say, or if you must, look for the constructive criticism and work from that. But if you're looking in The Stranger for anything other than entertainment...well, just kill yourself.
I'm all for bringing The Real in art criticism, but The Stranger's approach to modern dance has been largely dismissive, save for when Bret Fetzer was handling performance duties (he wasn't the only reviewer of dance during that time, but he seemed to find writers that didn't treat attending dance performances as a punishment).
That said, I hardly think the write-up for acorn's performance is worth getting worked up about, and certainly not worth any tears. I've performed in dances that were far more humiliating than an obvious toss-off space filler such as this "review".
uh, that's why it's called criticism and journalism.
I'd say that Monica must be a Millenial and used to getting gold stars for effort, but artists have been whining about criticism for hundreds of years.
I'm still delighted that Pauline Kael's review of "Ryan's Daughter" forced the overrated David Lean off the screen for 15 years, because it was so "hurtful".
@ 2: I didn't claim to read a bunch of books about anything. I just think private conversations about race among white Americans are more common than Jen thinks. That's all.
(And trying posting under your real name some time, you craven jackass.)
Go dance off a cliff, pussy.
If it's any consolation: Who reads modern reviews?
Why would you continue to read - for eight years - a publication that makes you cry? I think Monica has a dark secret.
god, if i had a nickel for every time a stranger theater editor had to justify themselves against whining modern dancers i'd have 35 cents.
OF COURSE brendan's right, and everyone else simply hasn't thought about it enough.
and not to nit-pick, brendan, but you forgot #8:
8. Yes, The Stranger hates modern dance.
Whoops - that should have said "modern dance". Actually, I take it all back anyhow. Dancers can be pretty hot, I don't want to be on their bad side.
for that matter, does anyone but modern dancers READ modern dance reviews?
And, I'd hazzard a guess that the majority of people who click on an online Jen Graves review or article on a local artist or event, are either artists themselves, gallery owners or just click to look at the pretty and/or ugly pictures...
I find Kiley's comments amusing considering just last month he gave a glowing review to a play he admitted he hadn't seen (Intiman's "Streetcar") which turned out to be a steaming pile of poo.
COMMENT DELETED: Sock Puppetry
We'd rather not moderate your comments, but off-topic, gratuitously inflammatory, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate remarks may be removed, and repeat offenders may be banned from commenting. We never censor comments based on ideology. Thanks to all who add to the conversation on Slog.
This was one of the most honest, well-written things I've read in Slog in a long time. Well-said Mr. Kiley. Kudos.
#9 is meant for #6
The Stranger's art criticisms - especially for theatre and dance - arfe worthless (especially in the Matthew Richter days). It's cutesy self indulgent bullshit - what the Beverly Blaze would have been had Andrea Zuckerman not ruled it with an iron fist.
What especially insidious is how The Stranger will kiss ass of their friends not matter how mediocre or mailed in the performance was (are you reading this Mr. Fetzer? Mr. Richter).
Who gives a shit what these clowns say? If you do, you're only stooping to their level.
BLEH!
You can say you don't care what they say, Mr. Sinclair, but you cannot say that you don't read every word of it. Two times over. Sometimes three (depends on the issue.)
For the record, I don't hate all modern dance. Dancers who've been on the Genius short list, for example: Pat Graney, Zoe Scofield, Amy O'Neal, maybe Dayna Hanson. (If we haven't, we should.) The Stranger also digs tEEth, Crispin Spaeth, et al.
The Stranger's art criticisms - especially for theatre and dance - arfe worthless (especially in the Matthew Richter days). It's cutesy self indulgent bullshit - what the Beverly Blaze would have been had Andrea Zuckerman not ruled it with an iron fist.
What especially insidious is how The Stranger will kiss ass of their friends not matter how mediocre or mailed in the performance was (are you reading this Mr. Fetzer? Mr. Richter).
Who gives a shit what these clowns say? If you do, you're only stooping to their level.
BLEH!
@18 & 9 - why? I thought the Stranger comparison was a (mean but kind of funny) joke and that the letter writer was being overly sensitive.
The letter writer just wrote a bad review of The Stranger's whole critical staff. How does that make you feel guys? I found the review puerile and self-centered. It was self-indulgent and based entirely on emotion. Only one emotion at that: self-pity, probably the most unattractive emotion of them all. I will think twice about reading letters from this writer in the future and am unable to recommend this one to my friends.
I think performance artists get so deep in their own work that they lose sight of the bigger picture, and as a result an ability to see their own work objectively.
Personally, I'd rather not waste money and 2 hours of my time watching a meh show or, even worse, a bad show. I appreciate an honest review, both as a theatregoer and as a performer who has been a part of good theatre shows and bad theatre shows in his lifetime. The best reviews aren't the positive ones, but the honest ones (whether or not your peers agree) because you learn a lot more from the latter than 500 words of "Oh this production was so wonderful!"
And isn't art about growth, after all? From pain and criticism comes growth.
@ 15: What are you talking about? My preview with Sheila Daniels? Or the Suggests where I explicitly wrote that I hadn't seen the production but I expected great things because of the people involved?
Where's the dishonesty in either of those?
I don't know... sure, crying over something like that is stupid. But, I do think there's a difference between "honest criticism" of something that is bad (saying something is bad when it is bad, which is of course a good thing) and "snarky criticism" of something that is bad (mocking the thing that is bad in order to be funny).
The Stranger does both, and I can see how if you worked your ass off on something and the reviewers resorted to snarky criticism" (not taking it seriously enough to give it "honest criticism"), that could be hurtful.
Thoughtful criticism is all very well, but personally I prefer praise.
My exposure to modern dance I believe was bumbershoot, or whatever performance art it is. If I had to give my naive critic ... quite simply, I don't get it.
I can tell when it happens when the smell of B.O. starts to waife down the block, everyone parts way, the dance troop comes through, in very very exagerated motions and looking like Tom Hanks wet and covered in plaster from the Money Pit.
The motions are much more deliberate and correographed than what I would see at the oregon country fair, but it's still something I'm ill equipped to appreciate.
But why should I stand in the way of someone elses fun, and if someone appreciates it ... awesome. Maybe it's just one those more nonspectator activities like slot machines, baseball, golf, or blue grass.
Whether or not it's hurtful, becoming morally pious about your work just because you put a lot of effort into it is still a counterproductive mindset. Effort is not a coupon for freedom from criticism.
That Lindy West intro is one of the funniest things I've read in ages!
One more thing, it's healthy to have a sense of humor about the art you suffer for. I heard this joke from my sister, also an Emmerson College theater graduate.
How do you get the Emmerson theater graduate off your porch?
Why pay him/her for the pizza.
#16 IS NOT ME!!!
I have purposely not posted here in some time, chiefly because of sock puppets.
Please remove #16 due to violation of the SLOG's sock puppet clause.
By "mean" of course you mean "kick ass".
Some people go to art school because they want to focus their creative urges. Others go to art school because they need attention. And yet still others go because they like wearing berets and/or soulpatches and/or hipster glasses, depending on decade.
The Stranger's art criticisms - especially for theatre and dance - arfe worthless (especially in the Matthew Richter days). It's cutesy self indulgent bullshit - what the Beverly Blaze would have been had Andrea Zuckerman not ruled it with an iron fist.
What especially insidious is how The Stranger will kiss ass of their friends not matter how mediocre or mailed in the performance was (are you reading this Mr. Fetzer? Mr. Richter).
Who gives a shit what these clowns say? If you do, you're only stooping to their level.
BLEH!
COMMENT DELETED: Sock Puppetry
We'd rather not moderate your comments, but off-topic, gratuitously inflammatory, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate remarks may be removed, and repeat offenders may be banned from commenting. We never censor comments based on ideology. Thanks to all who add to the conversation on Slog.
Monica: Follow Harry Truman's lead after his daughter, Margaret, was filleted by Washington Post critic Paul Hume for her alleged poor singing performance at a Constitution Hall concert.
THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTONDec. 6, 1950
Mr. Hume:
I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay."
It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.
Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!
Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.
H.S.T.
Any check of the appropriate email address will make clear that the asshole who is using my name is clearly a fake.
#36 is NOT ME!
Knock it off you cowardly piece of shit!
Oh my god, I feel a small tirade coming on!
Tough arts criticism, even the occasional mean-spirited assault, is a neccesity for a real arts scene. Do theatre artists actually want more "nice" critics like Joe Adcock? Artists that whine about their reviews by calling them "mean" aren't artists. You have to develop your ideas and be prepared to defend the specifics of your execution before you're ready to make art in the big scary world. And, like any other profession, the arts business is a business, you self-obssesed, ideologically myopic morons -- your shit either has to sell tickets or compete for patronage or both, and it won't for long if it's consistently no good. Critics exist to prevent bad art from securing economic support and entering the cannon. (I'd love it if the Stranger had the balls to tell a number of local artists to just "STOP!") They also promote good art to a broader consumer base, nurturing new ideas and style.
Also, I can personally vouch for Kiley's well-developed, mature and thoughtful taste. It may not be good, but he's got it.
@30, sure, becoming morally pious about your work isn't a good thing. But, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if Brendan gets on his high horse and talks about how important it is to have honest criticism, them the Stranger should have honest criticism, and not snarky criticism.
I don't give a shit about modern dance, so, I thought the acornDance bit was hilarious. But, let's say I was in the show and was taking it pretty seriously as a valid artistic expression. And, the Stranger thinks that it is just something to make fun of and so runs this graphic and some joke about how stoned teenagers will mock them from afar. And that's it. I think I might be pretty annoyed that they were not taking my art seriously.
That being said, as a Stranger reader, I prefer the snarky stuff. But as an artist (if I were one), especially given Brendan's treatise in this post, I would hope for more honest criticism.
It's obviously me, Ecce. You're a little slow, but it's ok. We already know that.
I thought it was cause they were underpaid and thus couldn't be bothered giving a darn.
That or too much sleeping with the sockpuppets.
Modern dance should be nothing but pop-locking. Arts criticism in general should be broken down into two word reviews.
Lindy West is the only reason to read any review in the Stranger. I think I slightly stained my drawers reading that intro...
Modern dance is only interesting if everyone is naked and photoshopped. Perhaps the letter submitter should be doing porn, instead. Put that art degree to work!
The Stranger's art criticisms - especially for theatre and dance - arfe worthless (especially in the Matthew Richter days). It's cutesy self indulgent bullshit - what the Beverly Blaze would have been had Andrea Zuckerman not ruled it with an iron fist.What especially insidious is how The Stranger will kiss ass of their friends not matter how mediocre or mailed in the performance was (are you reading this Mr. Fetzer? Mr. Richter).
Who gives a shit what these clowns say? If you do, you're only stooping to their level.
At least the writers take most of their material seriously these days. I remember years ago when they actually paid Meg Van Huygen to write about how she walked out of shows after 10 minutes. That was a fucking disgrace to this paper.
Artists subject to the whims and caprices of cruel reviewers might wish to practice repeating the following phrases:
1. "Fucking hack! Like he/she'd know art if it bit him/her on the ass!"
2. "Well, they didn't like the show, but they sure seemed to enjoy the complimentary wine at the opening!"
3. "Genius is never understood in its time."
4. "Remember when 'Crash' won the Academy Award for best picture? What the fuck was that?"
5. "Reviews? I never read them."
6. "Barkeep! Pour me another and make it a double."
kiley's absolutely correct in everything he points out and he's made it clear to me why i despise his brand of 'criticism' so..
he and his kind of critics are not on the side of arts or artists.
he is there to protect the public from the art and the artists.
he's out there battling for the portion of the public who put their lazy trust in the hands of a writer of his particular arrogant ilk [cutting pans and a tired embodiment of insulting jokey gen-x misanthropy]. he is primarily a discourager. he is too much a specialist to really enjoy what he sees. ironic, as by his own admission he is out there for the beginner appreciator, the one who would swear to oppose [and have his children oppose] the whole art form based on a single play whose ultra-valuable 'results' don't live up to his specialist standards [standards uncultivated by his huffy playgoer]. it is evident he doesn't particularly like theatre, a sad but common hazard to critics.
moreover, he routinely does not direct his public to anything, to enlightened thinking/feeling in arts or to an understanding of taste/experience in culture.. just the opposite: to relying on someone to do our cultural critiquing for us, generally in the snarkiest [big one in this thread's wordcloud] way.
as an entertainer he succeeds beautifully to those readers who live in disappointed schadenfreude. this is the highest compliment i can afford him.
perhaps in his defense he only does what it is a typical critic does and has always typically done, which is not much really to say for oneself. perhaps this is why he is so reviled by artists whose efforts [efforts which do matter enormously] have been so caustically and carelessly maligned. and i'm sure if he truly desired to use his critical prowess to support and advance the art form he would find a significant way to do it.
nevertheless..
as it is, he is brook's 'deadly critic'. he upholds all that sontag strove for in calling for seriousness against shallow philistinism. he comes across as a lazy, self-involved arbiter of quality, neither complex contextually nor a specific, local champion. he strips complexity for digestible soundbytery ranking. he is a glorified netflix blurb.
artists will continue to make work, to experiment and fail and succeed [by more appropriate standards than he espouses]. and, with luck along the painful way, they will see his comparative relevance for what it is. and with an ever scarcer luck, the public will know a newer kind of critic/criticism to replace these cynical keepers of the gold stars.
Comment 47 was totally cut and pasted from somewhere, with a couple of edits. The location of the genuine article escapes me....
Don't let the haters get you down, Brendan. Frankly journalism needs more writers like you.
(Using my real name and everything) Oh, the meta-irony, when the critic is criticized.
Dear hardworking, much-maligned modern dancers: nobody gets modern dance. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.
I agree with Julia @27 and 40, and I'll add this. Brendan's defense of criticism is excellent. Brendan implying that defense explains the criticism found in The Stranger, though, is insincere and hollow. For the most part, only the last sentence applies: It's just mean.
...he routinely does not direct his public to anything, to enlightened thinking/feeling in arts or to an understanding of taste/experience in culture.. just the opposite: to relying on someone to do our cultural critiquing for us,...
Oh God. People like you are the reason why contemporary art sucks. 'It's not that my work is garbage, it's that those fucking plebs aren't "enlightened" enough to appreciate it.' Fuck you.
And I've long had to come to my own conclusions about theater, dance, and visual art, because most critics refuse to actually critique that work. They're determined to give gold stars for effort.
When did the contemporary art world turn into the Special Olympics?
Don't let the haters get you down, Brendan. Frankly journalism needs more writers like you.
Oh, #47, I was hoping someone would say something like that.
First, you're a pompous jerk. Trust me -- it takes one to know one.
Second, it's not by any stretch of the imagination a critic's job to "advance" an art. It's not even within his power. That's an artist's job.
Third, a critic's responsibility is ONLY to his readers, the majority of whom (god willing) are not artists, but potential arts patrons. His first job is to tell them what artworks they are likely to enjoy, as art must first and foremost entertain. His second job is to point out those moments or features that his readers might especially want to savor or avoid. Third, the critic can and should provide a framework for interpreting and understanding the artwork and incorporating this meaning into one's broader view of life. It would be best to also provide a sense for the aesthetic criteria used to make his determinations, but a critic isn't asked to judge himself, just what he sees.
One thing to remember: not all artwork is worth, or even capable of sustaining, all levels of criticism. A review that indicates an artwork is too unpalatable to consume -- a review where a critic stops criticizing -- is as valid as a 5,000 word essay wherein a critic attempts to "advance" an art.
@47,
while i'm well aware the usual comment thread trollden is rather too swift for articulation, i'm going to take as a compliment your idiot accusation.
so go ahead and google your befuddled heart out and when you come up short, i suggest you take a breath and take some time and attempt something articulate yourself, something worthy of plagiarism. unfortunately for you, i AM the genuine article.
but sadly, i guess this takes me out the '88 presidential race..
@#56: Drunk? Or just extra-stupid? Did you lob that at yourself (you are #47) or #48 or me (I hope we get to fight, I need a harmless fight today) at #55?
And, honey? Articulate? You? Not a chance.
Please, please, please somebody take this bait. Flamingbanjo? Where are you?
Brendan you are fucking dick: go die you talentless vulture of a journalist.
58. Wait, so given your screen name... you're Brendan? Does this count as a sock puppet?
@55 - Third, a critic's responsibility is ONLY to his readers...
Josef, you're confusing art critics with tour guides and waiters. "omg, that sux!" is a Yahoo user rating, not a valid art review.
@40 - That being said, as a Stranger reader, I prefer the snarky stuff. But as an artist (if I were one), especially given Brendan's treatise in this post, I would hope for more honest criticism.
Bingo. So who are you writing for?
With all due respect, Kiley, in two recent reviews you announced that you walked out at intermission, which really undermines your first point. (And, btw, I'd love to have a job where I could say, "I got bored and went home – here’s my report on the first half of the meeting," so I hope you appreciate yours.)
You included tallies of local actors in this week's Review Revue, indicating that you think somebody has a responsibility to local artists. That's great. But how about making a commitment to holding up your end of the conversation about the art they're making, instead of just lobbing snark to entertain your readers?
Yes, I wrote that comment.
That acornDance thing wasn't a review, it was a joke.
Quit taking yourself so damn seriously you useless waste of space.
C'mon Krebsie - I'll take you with one bourbon-and-soda ensconsed hand tied behind me back...
And adrian:whatever, are you saying "Two thumbs UP!" is NOT a valid review?
Huh, guess that's why Siskel & Ebert never managed to eke out a living...
@60:
S, read on... While I think that a critic's responsiblity is only to her readers, I do say she should say more than "omg, that sux!" But she's still
About leaving the theatre at intermission: if a play is so bad even a critic doesn't want to see how the story ends, well then, she should warn potential audience members about that. I leave plays and concerts all the time at intermission, and I've stopped feeling guilt about it. It's the artwork's job to keep an audience engaged. If an artwork fails that basic test, it ain't worth a damn.
Regarding local work, Brendan has done a good job of noting local talent on big-house stages around town, but he's been in no way responsible for the increase in its use. That's been a purely economic choice, and audiences have ratified this decision with their continued near-mindless standing ovations.
all right, all right.
i give. i don't want this fight here. i don't want to participate. i don't mean to be pompous. i don't mean to WIN or beat somebody at their own game or be fucking RIGHT like everyone seems to need to be these days. i just want to be honest about what i want and what i care about. i wrote what i wrote in anger and it shows and though i stand by most of it, i now regret its vent. i agonized for a long while over writing what i did and i begin to feel that it was a mistake and in the wrong place and aimed at the wrong person. brendan is not the cause of my anger but the shallow and destructive culture of commodity-driven art. i don't know brendan personally and maybe what's fairest to be said is that we have substantially opposing tastes. i believe in taste and opinions not in good/bad, right/wrong. i believe in community, in effort, in the opposite of ego and in supporting what we all do. maybe the gap between critics and artists is irreconcilable but i believe in believing otherwise.
i intensely dislike this form of discourse. it discourages vulnerability and supports posturing, anger and arrogance. i'm guilty of all three today. faceless argument is stupid and destructive. whoever's ego needs to chalk up another cyberwin, take it. if you love to choke on bile, bon appetit. i'm content to lose today and figure out where i went wrong. i renounce bile, mockery, so-called wit and trying to appear smart. i embrace courage, humility, maturity and taking seriously what you believe in.
peace.
@66, kind of,
Well, now that we're being nice and vulnerable, I want to alter my comments at 65. I think it's been a great thing to see so many more local artists employed regularly at big houses, and it's been good to see audiences embracing this trend by continuing to show up and enjoy themselves.
But, I'd like to forward the idea that art is a commodity, just like steel or oil; that artists are both creators and craftsmen, just like designers, engineers and metalworkers. Art has a place in our human economy that has power and worth; a critic's place may be to evaluate that market worth and discuss it for her readers.
Hey Bren,
I've got a suggestion for ya.
How 'bout DISCUSSING THE ACTUAL SHOW? What it's about? Whose in it? What works, what doesn't? You know, give us an idea of what they're trying to do and whether or not it's worth the time. If you don't like it, that's cool. But at least show us you actually made an effort.
That picture you posted shows you clearly didn't.
But hey, why listen to me? I'm just a dope who comments on blogs. This style of "writing" has obviously worked for you, and The Stranger obviously approves, otherwise you wouldn't be getting anymore paychecks from them.
But allow me to part with some sage advice:
"There but for the grace of God go I."
Yeah, it could be YOU getting unfairly slagged by some hack.
Perhaps it already HAS BEEN YOU.
Tell the gang at Elysian Fields I said hi.
Frank
Yeah criticism doesn't have to be nice, but it's best if it is accurate.
The Stranger's dance reviews are particularily ill-informed and even when they are trying to say something nice it is often condescending. Along the lines of; 'dancers are sexy so watch them' or 'this is so weird get stoned and go'. An example that comes to mind is comparing modern dance to looking through a sky mall catalog. This was some years ago, but so mind-blowingly insulting and ignorant it pops in my mind every time I read another "witty" dance review in the stranger. The sad thing is this comment was in a "positive" review.
A critic's job is not to belly rub artists, but neither is it to only appreciate art that is hip, trendy and already successful. Stranger dance critics should take it upon themselves to freshen up on their critical theory (if they even studied arts criticism ever, I suspect they are just for the most part winging it) and they should educate themselves on the history and language of whatever medium they happen to be reviewing, so they actually have something to say about it other than 'I didn't get it, it was weird'. Of course you don't understand a language you haven't taken the time to learn. Otherwise a writer comes off just as brainless, childish and pretentious as they claim the art they are reviewing to be. If a writer is not willing to do the research required to say something intelligent about their chosen topic, they are hardly qualified to say anything at all.
But arts reader, it COULD help to have the stranger school up on dance critique.
But why is modern dance so hard to appreciate? At the end of the day, it just takes a more "sophisticated" taste. To some people that can be interpreted as condescending.
And it wasn't a critique, it was a JOKE something that most of us felt, but it was entertaining to READ it somewhere.
#69. Yes. I know the original mini-review was supposed to be funny. Which in itself is kind of irresponsible for an arts critic to not even review something, but just use it to make themselves look clever. But, I was actually trying to discuss the overall quality of the stranger's dance reviews and not just that one particular filler piece.
I don't think modern dance is any harder to understand than any other modern abstract art form (experimental short film for example). I do think an arts writer should school themselves on whichever art medium they are writing about. I also think the general public has had less previous exposure to dance than some other arts like music, film and even theater. Which means that although it isn't as you say "so hard to appreciate" or require a "sophisticated taste" it is a language many people have not experienced enough to understand. If an arts writer wanted to truly serve it's audience and the creative community it writes about (which while they should be there not to blow smoke up anyone's a** , but they really should try to progress arts forward, it is their job stability afterall) said writer would try to bridge the gap intelligently between an arts community and their reading audience.
Arts Reader, I think that at the end of the day, tastes are extremely subjective. What some people regard as art, other people do not regard as art. Maybe the stranger should sell their critiques as ... if you appreciate this, then check this out ... then maybe switch to the clever whatever. I mean you don't try to sell How Stella Got Her Groove back at the guys at McFaddens. I mean we live in a city, right? We come here because we have refined tastes and like to explore our options. Personally, a lot of painters think I'm bat shit crazy for liking Monet. I think the pictures look pretty. I also think they are abstract enough for my imagination, and yet relevent enough so that I can get it. I feel similarly to Van Goh, Dali, and of course Escher. I also don't like to think to hard about what I am enjoying ... I'm the type that might appreciate the effort, but be entirely satisfied with the result and will try to give credit where credit is due. As a guitar player, I might appreciate Victor Wooten, Joe Satriani or Steve Vai every once in a while, but I think most of what they do is too technical and lacking soul and sometimes rather difficult to listen to. I wouldn't expect everyone to get it, but it's good for what it is.
I was also under the impression that modern dance/perfomance has done their damndest to alienate the mainstream for a VERY long time. It wasn't until recently have a few been trying to attract the wider audience. Modern dance is tainted with respect to most mainstream culture, and its more or less by choice.
I think the point was to widen the idea of what is acceptable in the mainstream. My perspective. Regardless, I don't think it is a good policy to completely write off the current state of something because it had a couple of bad spots in the past. And the way our mainstream cultural preferences are atrophying into a puddle of clear channel mish mash I'm also not sure we should spoonfeed the mainstream exactly more of the same all of the time.
I agree it is important to know your audience, thing is it seems a lot of irritated dancers and dance patrons ARE actually stranger readers as well, judging by some of the responses. I also have no problem with the occasional "clever" cop out review. I do have a problem that dance is consistently the medium that is selected for this purpose
You can say you think that something sucks by describing why you didn't enjoy it, instead of calling people "naive young humans", or "insecure." Heck, you might even have valid criticisms that could be posed in a constructive way -- stuff that artists might actually get something out of...
Writing intentionally insulting things like the example piece above may be amusing, but while it may give a few people a laugh, it really just gives level headed pragmatic folks a vision of a pretentious indie hipster kid who won't admit that he/she is acting just like the folks they were bitter about back in high school -- just wearing a different uniform.
I can't believe I just read this entire thread. The last time I read 70 plus comments in their entirety was over at Macrumors.com speculating about the case design of the new iPhone. 253. That's how big a loser I am - and what company I'm in! Seriouslly people. Go outside. Stop your "art-making" and... oops just threw up sorry. It's just that Slog comments are just what they are and nothing more. They are neither irrelevant nor it's opposite. Internet chatter is the farthest thing removed from the moment when something happens, you know, like, on stage or whatever. PS is 3G really faster or what?
art is gay
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.
