Posts
It seems strange that Croce is so set in her ways about work that can be critiqued yet is willing to write about a work that she has not even seen and relies on secondary and tertiary sources for gathering questionable information. Might Croce be doing just what she despised about Jone's performance, in calling attention to herself and "baiting...[an]...audience"(21)? As Oates suggested at the end of her article, is this the last hurrah of a dying breed of art critic?
Does Jones ever declare "Still/Here" to be a work of art? Croce states that "people were asking wheter Jone's type of theatre is a new art form"(15). Should it be classified as art? Can we tell even though we haven't seen the performance? Does it matter?
First - gender confusion. Arlene Croce is a woman. Not all critics are men ;-)
ReplyDeleteCroce's refusal to go see Jones' work and the entitlement she implied by writing about it nonetheless have been the main complaints against the piece since it appeared. We'll discuss this, but briefly - for now, I think it's important to ask whether as an art critic, one should talk about thigns that one doesn't recognize as art.
The second half of your question is interesting - what does Jones do to announce the work as a work of art? Should what he's be doing be 'classified as art'? These have some important stuff in them, and I look forward to the group's response.
Does it matter? Of course it does! If it doesn't matter what things (artworks, performances, books, movies, music, etc.) are and how they are used and discussed, then why be involved in making and showing them?
Ooops yes woman indeed...sorry Croce...sorry men.
ReplyDelete