Comments on: Ay, yi yi yi.

By: The Critic: To Be or Not to Be? : Bitter Lemons

The Critic: To Be or Not to Be? : Bitter Lemons — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:33:12 +0000

[...] back the brightest bulb on our Bitter Lemons Tree, Trevor Thomas, wrote an excellent article called AY, YI, YI, YI. His premise was that the critic should basically “remove” himself from his own [...]

By: The “Problem” With Bloggers Part 2: There Is No “I” In…

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:56:02 +0000

[...] on Bitter Lemons (a blog for the LA theater community), the writer of this post makes a point that bloggers are not proper critics but diarists. There is, according to him, no [...]

By: The “Problem” With Bloggers?

The “Problem” With Bloggers? — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:23:05 +0000

[...] There are so many layers to this topic. So, yup, definitely a series, including tackling the “problem” with “I”, considering the very real possibility of losing “legit” press coverage for most of the [...]

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:06:48 +0000

Thanks for the invite, Mariann! I have a busy spring, rehearsing 6 days a week for the upcoming UCLA Theater Dept. production of Cabaret (I am assistant music directing), but if any spare time opens up, I will certainly be in touch!

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/theater-talkback-odd-man-out-syndrome/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Just ran across this NY Times article by Charles Isherwood on the subjective / collective experience of theater-going. It’s a great read and a nice counterpoint to this conversation! “What if you happen to be a classical music writer with a wholesale aversion to Mozart? Because responses to artworks are so personal, a responsible critic must acknowledge that idiosyncratic predilections may play into his or her responses to a show, and must be careful to separate considered aesthetic judgments from plain old personal prejudice. (Or at least admit to plain old prejudice; “I hate farce,” my guest informed me before the curtain went up.)”

By: Mariann Aalda

Mariann Aalda — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:07:25 +0000

Such a scholarly debate about theatre criticism…and in LA no less. Have the Poles (as a geographical/directional metaphor, not in any reference to the citizenry of the country) shifted?!

As a shameless opportunist, I would like to refer you to a Trevor Thomas review of “M.O.I.S.T.!” a show I co-wrote and co-star in with Iona Morris: http://www.edgelosangeles.com/index.php?ch=entertainment&sc=theatre&sc2=&sc3=performance&id=96966

In my new awareness of and appreciation for his erudition in theatrical criticism, I am even more humbled by Trevor’s praise. Btw, Sarah & Colin, “M.O.I.S.T.!” continues to run on Sundays at 7pm at the Hayworth Theatre through May 9, if you’d like to weigh-in. Email me at moistonstage@aol.com for tix

By: What to Make of (Meta)Criticism Today « Drama, Daily

What to Make of (Meta)Criticism Today « Drama, Daily — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 02:32:24 +0000

[...] criticism’ because “I” don’t always heed the 3rd person rule? Based on his 4/5 post on the LA theatre blog BitterLemons, Trevor Thomas would argue that my review pieces on this blog are more diary, than critique. [...]

By: Colin Mitchell

Colin Mitchell — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:11:38 +0000

Excellent points, Sarah. I was just about to rip Trevor’s article to shreds but now there’s no need! But seriously, I can see both sides of the argument, Trevor’s view is very solid, and yet I can’t help thinking that we might be standing in the midst of a fascinating petri dish here concerning the evolution of theatre criticism. And I am the happy Alchemist, stirring the cauldron gleefully, welcoming any explosion that might result. Carry on, Sarah!

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:48:46 +0000

I had no idea my blog was so controversial! Thanks for the fascinating post, Trevor. You’re right … my blog is explicitly a blog, and was never intended to be the “proper criticism” that you might find in a newspaper. But I think my blog is a valid form of criticism even if it doesn’t take the established form. You write, “Contrary to appearances, there are no “I’s” in “critic,” there are only ‘eyes.’” But these “eyes” inevitably belong to an “I,” a critic seated at the theater and having an intensely subjective experience. It’s up to the individual critic whether to admit this personal engagement or not. By talking about myself, I do intentionally assert my own humanity. In my opinion, a critic should not be some disembodied, superior voice speaking down to a generalized public. I write plenty of formal, omniscient reviews and papers in my PhD program, but even scholarly work in theater and performance studies is increasingly turning towards “performative writing,” which draws attention to the writers’ own positionality. Perhaps I should write a traditional, omniscient review sometime soon to see what that style stirs up in contrast to my other posts! Glad to have stirred up such an interesting dialogue and debate.