|
Thursday, 19 June 2008
"On Horror and Criticism"
Jana P, a Melbourne-based writer who maintains the blog mono no
aware, posts today on the quality of London theatre criticism,
taking recent critical reactions to Anthony Nielson's Relocated, at the Royal Court through 5 July,
as her text.
After considering both the positive and negative reviews of the show,
Jana remains dissatisfied. She writes:
[Even the positive reviews are] commendable, yet inadequate. For here
we have all the usual ails: the need to assess as good or bad, the
need to decipher the theme, the meaning, the purpose of the exercise, and
an idea of art as a polemic, rather than what Susan Sontag called a
thing in the world, something to sensually experience, appreciate for
its own sake.
Going on, Jana also quotes from a recent post on Andrew Haydon's blog, in which Andrew goes
into somewhat more detail about the qualities that British critical
culture, at least as that which takes theatre as its subject, currently
displays:
In many ways, partly because of this lack of a serious intellectual
culture in British public life, having a more creative, interpretative
critical culture wouldn't make much sense as there simply aren't that many
plays being produced that would benefit from such rigours being applied to
them. While say Martin Crimp and Howard Barker might enjoy such a regime
change, current critical favourites from Alan Bennett to Roy Williams
would find themselves left a bit out in the cold. The fact of the matter
is, not much British theatre is actually very arty. It wears its messages
and meanings plastered all over its sleeves and generally prefers to offer
stories that anyone can readily understand with messages that it would
take serious concentration to overlook. I generalise, but not by much. At
the same time, this divergence of critical thought does explain why both
Crimp and Barker, not to mention Sarah Kane and Mark Ravenhill, receive so
much warmer receptions on mainland Europe than in Britain. It also
provides the answer as to why so many normally intelligent, thoughtful
British critics treat work by some of Europe’s more successful but
idiosyncratic directors as if it is something to be debunked and
dismissed.
Time doesn't permit me to apply Jana's and Andrew's assessments to
current American critical culture.
So long as Lyn Gardner is offering modest proposals to place a moratorium on new
productions of plays by Shakespeare, perhaps it's an interesting thought
experiment to consider one more. Given the place of the reviewing and
critical community in the post-capitalist ideology that
maintains journalists, the business community and artists as
closely-aligned participants in the discipline, maybe we should
place a moratorium on criticism and reviewing as well. So long as we might
think about "giving Shakespeare a rest," as Lyn puts it, perhaps our
critics and reviewers could also use some time away from the theatre.
Let's give the reviewers and theatre editors for the New York
Times, Time Out New York, Backstage, the Guardian
and
nytheatre.com a paid one-year vacation and see what
transpires.
Of course there are a number of reasons why this remains a
thought-experiment; certainly the theatrical blogosphere is not
mature enough, nor is it on the radars of enough theatregoers, to take the
place of print criticism. But there are many self-evident reasons
(they're evident to writers like Jana and Andrew, anyway, and perhaps to
Nielson, Crimp and Barker as well) to believe that work which undermines
and questions contemporary cultural ideology would be presented to working
critics whose perspectives, professional interests and ideological
prejudices do not permit the attention and mature consideration that this
work may deserve. The other alternative, and perhaps more practical, is
not to admit reviewers into one's productions, not out of fear but out of
an appropriate mistrust of the bad faith that the critics' and reviewers'
own public
writings and
comments demonstrate. Ultimately this means that productions would need to
live out the length of their runs with neither positive nor negative
reviews, and the lack of publicity which accords to them. It may be,
though, an acceptable trade-off, and allow audiences to receive this
work with neither preconception nor a prejudice formed by a critic. As Sir Humphrey Appleby might well put it, however, this
would be the most courageous thing that theatre has ever done, with
undoubtedly dire consequences. Though I wonder for whom those consequences
would be most dire.
Jana's entire post, once again, is here.
Posted at 9.09 am in /Miscellaneous
Permanent link to this story
|
join the theatre minima mailing
list
A Theatre Surrounds a City
Vienna's Burgtheater.
Superfluities Redux Home
Page
theatre minima
Web
Site: George
Hunka
Organum I
"95 Sentences About Theatre" (Prolegomena to
Organum I)
What They
Said ... (About Superfluities)
Subscribe
RSS
feed
FeedBurner feed
Contact
Selective Index
Books
Buenos Aires in
Translation reviews
Guardian
essays
Interview with
Marilyn Nonken
Je Suis Sang
review
Music
Notes on Bertolt
Brecht
Notes on Daniel
Keene
Notes on
Howard Barker
Notes on Richard
Foreman
Notes on Samuel
Beckett
Notes on Sarah
Kane
Notes on The
Wooster Group
Notices/reviews
Openings
Organum
II
Saint
Oedipus review
theatre
minima
"The
Theatre Writer"
Links
(NEW = Recently Added)
Howard
Barker
Morton
Feldman
Richard
Foreman
Hot Review
Hyperion: On the Future of Aesthetics
Marilyn Nonken
Performance Space
122
David Rudkin
TheatreVoice
(UK)
Blogroll
(NEW = Recently Added)
American
Theatre Web
Mark
Armstrong
Chris Boyd
Alison
Croggon
Culturebot
A.C. Douglas
Edward
Einhorn
Garrett Eisler
Ben
Ellis
Christine
Evans
Andrew
Field
Matthew
Freeman
Chris Goode
Guardian Theatre Blog (UK)
Simon
Harris
Andrew
Haydon
Art
Hennessey
Steve Hicken
Ming-Zhu Hii
Bruce Hodges
Rob
Kendt
Lucas
Krech
Claudia La
Rocco (WNYC)
mono no
aware
Obscene
Jester
Ontological-Hysteric Theatre
Reverend Billy
Wendy
Rosenfeld
Terry
Teachout
theatreVOICE blog
Theatre is Territory
Chloe
Veltman
James Waites
Scott
Walters
Tal Yarden
|
