Recenzi chápu jako zpětnou vazbu divákům i autorům představení. Pro čtenáře má recenze snad informační hodnotu, co od představení čekat, poskytuje názor (vždy subjektivní) ohledně přínosů či nedostatků díla v rámci širšího kontextu vlastních zkušeností pisatele. Umělci zase přináší komplexní feedback dojmů, které dílo vyvolá. Pokud dílo nenajde u konkrétního jedince odezvu, možná stojí za to přemýšlet proč? Je kritik vždy prostě jen idiot?
Commentary
Lovely! Thank you, Petra, for this article!
What stands out to me is right away the fact, that you describe right in the article. Which is how it is uncommon for artists and theoreticians to meet and talk about work.
I guess the whole question in “how to...” is starting with a simple word - meeting. If both as the reviewers and artists we just give into the production machinery of it all, we are not actually learning from each other. We write to make sure other writers appreciate our writing and we create art to make sure other artists appreciate our art. And we can use each other indirectly to be more valued in what we do, or get mad with each other, when the impact seems to produce the contrary. But, what if instead of that, we actually meet and actually see, actually listen, actually experience and share?!
If all we wanna do is sell, we make sure to manipulate the expectations of the “consumer”. When we put ourselves apart from each other or from the actual reader/spectator, all we end up doing is patronising - “let me tell you what to feel with my piece and let me explain to you why the piece has or has not any value”.
When we talk about “not creating a product”, it doesn’t mean there is no statement, content, essence. “To make it about the process” sounds like such a cliche and an empty phrase ( often used only as a trendy branding anyway). What it actually points towards is not patronising with the piece of art. Not coming and preaching with a definite interpretation of something. Not saying “this is how things are, look and learn dear audience”. And when the work attempts to change such expectation? Could the review help with that? How does the reviewer watch thie work? Can she watch first, to really see what is really at stake, before she analyses and thinks? Can she write about the work in a similar, non-patronising way? Who is the reader and how is this writing relevant to her?
I hope my words can be inspiring for the talks. I am anyway glad and very excited about what is already happening. Meeting.
What stands out to me is right away the fact, that you describe right in the article. Which is how it is uncommon for artists and theoreticians to meet and talk about work.
I guess the whole question in “how to...” is starting with a simple word - meeting. If both as the reviewers and artists we just give into the production machinery of it all, we are not actually learning from each other. We write to make sure other writers appreciate our writing and we create art to make sure other artists appreciate our art. And we can use each other indirectly to be more valued in what we do, or get mad with each other, when the impact seems to produce the contrary. But, what if instead of that, we actually meet and actually see, actually listen, actually experience and share?!
If all we wanna do is sell, we make sure to manipulate the expectations of the “consumer”. When we put ourselves apart from each other or from the actual reader/spectator, all we end up doing is patronising - “let me tell you what to feel with my piece and let me explain to you why the piece has or has not any value”.
When we talk about “not creating a product”, it doesn’t mean there is no statement, content, essence. “To make it about the process” sounds like such a cliche and an empty phrase ( often used only as a trendy branding anyway). What it actually points towards is not patronising with the piece of art. Not coming and preaching with a definite interpretation of something. Not saying “this is how things are, look and learn dear audience”. And when the work attempts to change such expectation? Could the review help with that? How does the reviewer watch thie work? Can she watch first, to really see what is really at stake, before she analyses and thinks? Can she write about the work in a similar, non-patronising way? Who is the reader and how is this writing relevant to her?
I hope my words can be inspiring for the talks. I am anyway glad and very excited about what is already happening. Meeting.