On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 03:00:09 -0500 (EST) JMDL Digest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > JMDL Digest Monday, November 25 2002 > Volume 2002 : Number 522 > > > > Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! > http://www.jonifest.com > ========== > > TOPICS and authors in this Digest: > -------- > njc why criticism - 2nd attempt at sendinf > [vince ] > Today in History: November 25 > [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Today's Library Links: November 25 > [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:38:15 -0500 > From: vince > Subject: njc why criticism - 2nd attempt at > sendinf > > Criticism in the arts is as old as the arts. > The teaching of critical > analysis of various fields of art - and other > things - is taught, and > has been since recorded history, and was > certainly all the craze as far > back as Aristotle and "Poetics." > > A critical review is an important review, in > one sense of the word, as > in "this is of critical importance." And > critical views (as opposed to > fawning reviews, ignorant reviews, puffery > reviews) is of vital > importance - shall I say, critical importance - > to the study of the > arts. > > I rely on critics to evaluate what I want to > buy, see, or experience. I > > have certain reviewers that I go to for certain > things -Blair Kanin on > architecture, for example, the New Yorker and > Michael Wilmington of the > Chicago Tribune for movies, Greg Kot of the > Trib for concerts... > > Read a critic enough and you know the standards > and biases of the > critic. I could tell in two sentences from a > Gene Siskel review if I > wanted to see the movie or not, regardless of > his opinion, because I > knew what he looked for and what I look for and > my experience of Siskel > allowed me to make an informed decision. > > Critics know a lot more than I do about the > subject at hand, where I am > really subjective, I trust their professional > expertise. I may search > out a number of reviews, or sometimes, am > content with one, depending on > > my needs, but if I really want to know about > something, I check many > reviews. I learn a great deal that way. > > (And what have all of the posts on T'log been > but critical reviews of > the album?) > > Of course there are crappy reviewers out there, > and each reviewer has > their places where I know my perspective > differs. There a few bad > drivers out there too but I am not going to > suggest that we ban all > driving. > > Reading Pauline Kael, Stanley Kaufman, and Gene > Siskel taught me so much > > about cinema... Blair Kanin on architecture is > an education in each > review... > > As far as criticism, are we confusing this with > nasty words said by > someone who doesn't like us with a critical > evaluation? Never then go > see a movie with me, for I do a critical > commentary on every movie I see > > as I leave the theater. (Me: I thought that > plot was weak. Gage: Yes, > it made no sense.) (An outstanding moment in > my life was with Gage's > father, Jeremy went to see Beverly Hills Cop II > when he was maybe 9 or > 10 and came home and said, "dad, you were > right, the movie sucked. It > was a series of disconnected scenes." Bingo, > kid, you got it!) > > If someone attends a worship service that I > take part in, I want > critical commentary on me. Did I make sense? > Did I present well? Did > I perform well? Were my words and gestures and > style real and sincere > or wooden and forced? Did I speak too fast? > Did I start talkin like a > Chicagoan an drop the ends off of de wurds in a > flat Chicago accent? > > The best sermon criticism I ever had, someone > said, "good sermon but > your views on [that subject] are myopic." > Well, upon further > examination, my views were indeed myopic! > Thank God for the critical > commentary! > > We had a sermon criticism class in seminary - > we'd videotape ourselves > and with the class review our performance, and > if anyone saw me at the > beginning (not that anyone has seen me now) > you'd be as glad as I am > that I had that class. Any service now to this > day that is videotaped, > I want to see to critically evaluate my > performance. That is how I > improve! And I bet every performing artist in > the JMDL does the same > thing with tapes and reviews from friends. We > ask for, we desire, we > lust for, we need criticism, reaction, our own > critical analysis, so > that we can improve. > > When I served as a chaplain at the U of > Michigan Medical Center, we had > small groups called IPR groups in which we > would critique each other's > interactions with patients. Damn did I learn a > lot! It was essential > to my growth in being a very good pastoral > visitor now, and having > learned the verbatim/critical response process, > I can "IPR" myself on > every visit and see where I missed something, > where my approach was > wrong, where I wasn't listening, where I said > something that mattered to > > the patient. > > Last Stones tour they were roundly criticized > for formula performing. > They took it to heart. The current tour is > amazing, and I doubt it > would have been had it not been for the reviews > that suggested that > Rolling Stones, Inc. was selling a tired > corporate product. The current > > tour is far improved. > > I learned so much in life reading book reviews, > I can't imagine where > I'd be today without those little seminars each > week. In last Sunday's > Chicago Tribune, an excellent review on Charles > Bowden's Down By the > River, a book on the drug cartels and their > interdependency with the > political aristocracy of Mexico, followed by a > review on a subject of > which i knew less than I do now,. the > pioneering role of women in social > > activism in Chicago in the post Chicago Fire > period which set the stage > for Jane Adams and Hull House and a total > re-definition of what it meant > > to assist those in need. > > As far as studying criticism, any good school > with a cinema department > will have classes in criticism. Hell, in > seminary, I studied Biblical > textual criticism, historical criticism, > redaction criticism, among > others, all vital to understanding the > Scriptures and unlocking passages > > and solving those passages which seemingly make > no sense and finding > depths of meaning. > > Art criticism - a subject unto itself and I > learned art appreciation by > reading the critics and reviewers. > > Criticism is not trash talking. Criticism is a > good thing. Of course > it can be done meanly, in spite, and that > perhaps happens far more in > our personal lives than in our public lives. > We have all been trash > talked to the point of pain and tears and we > can all cite reviews that > just plain are no good. > > But that does not negate the essential and > positive role that critical > study, critical reviews, play in our own growth > and understanding of > ourselves and the arts. > > The simple sentence: Joni Mitchell is > ______________ artist. Whatever > you put there, is a critical comment. > > Which recorded version of Woodstock do we like > best? The answer is a > critical study of her various versions - not > that critical means > negative, it simply means a thoughtful > examination based on one's > knowledge, insights, and feelings. And > because each critical review is > > not only objective ("her jazziest version") it > is also subjective, and > thus, I need either one very skilled critic > whom I can rely upon (I know > > the biases and the amount of knowledge and can > make my own judgment > accordingly) or we need 800 critics to give us > a body of critical > studies from which to draw. And has not each > of us had our > understandings of T'log enhanced by the number > of critical (not > negative, but evaluative) comments posted on > these boards? > > When I write something important I circulate > the text amongst people I > trust and beg for, pled for critical comments, > not just proof reading, > but critical comments. And, for example, on my > last paper, Laurent > found a serious flaw in my application of a > descriptive word on a series > > of events that indeed not all of them fit that > description. Since on > that description my paper rises or falls, > Laurent's critical comment > (not negative, but critical, evaluative) was > essential to fixing a fatal > > flaw in the paper, as well as challenge me on > some too easy assumption I > > made and forced me to think and rethink in that > area - so it was all > good. The critical process is essential to the > production of good > work. (Another friend made some critical > comments that were less than > insightful and I noted them but the impacted > nothing. Not all criticism > > is equally valid. And the friend who > contributed nothing to me this > time has made wonderful contributions through > criticism in the past, and > > will again, i hope.) > > Last word; I did a public prayer at a community > Thanksgiving service > which brought together two communities that > never do anything > together. I worked very hard to work in some > humor - ever try to write > > a prayer with humor in it and not make the > prayer a joke? - with some > simple jump points that would cause a sudden > inversion of the symbol so > that a new meaning would be lifted up: i.e., we > give thanks not for what > > we have or want, but rather, we give thanks for > what God has: us. > > So here is me, flaming leftist, with my prayer > with humor that inverts > the old understandings for new meanings and I > got knowing laughs (no one > > laughs during prayer, it was a milestone new > achievement and I loved it > as the humor was not in the joke which didn't > exist but in the irony of > human life that is funny), a few humorous quips > from the congregation > (at least they were involved in the prayer!) > and accomplished my goal of > > waking every one up to hang onto my next word > rather than snooze through > > another typical, boring thanksgiving prayer. > Then I did several symbol > inversions, ending with the major symbol > inversion re-emphasized as > *the* point. > > Results: the very conservative preacher made a > point of my "great > prayer" and two rather conservative pastors > commented that they loved > my familiar, easy way of talking to God in > public prayer as if it were a > > real conversation and not church talk (aha! I > did it!) as well as grab > common symbols from the gathered community that > made the prayer about > their reality, not about "spiritual" things > (aha! I did it!) and the > other conservative pastor said it was "really > God-centered" which > indeed was the attempt with the inversion of > symbols. So I got > reinforcing critical comments. Which was cool. > And had someone pointed > > out something that could have ben better, where > my attempt did not work > as well as I had hoped, that would have been > valuable as well so that I > can improve my ability to do this. > > Long and boring, but I feel compelled to > support the good and utterly > essential role that critical evaluation, > critical comments, critical > reviews play in improving and understanding the > arts and public > performance. > > the ever boring (self criticism at its finest) > Vince > > > PS I would affirm that Britney Spears is a > major talent, and a better > talent, in the world of dance tunes usable in > aerobics classes - a sub > category of music in which she excels and Joni > sucks, unless Joni is big > > time re-mixed and not always then. Will > Britney last? I think not. > But she has her niche, and she does her niche > art well. The fact that > other than its application in aerobics I have > little use for it is just > a factor of my life. > > The critical study of office furniture is a > major concern of Herman > Miller, located about 30 miles from me, where > criticism of function, > structure, lay out, and ergonomics of office > furniture allows them to > improve their products. Many people are in > that field, critically > analyzing office furniture, and every time I > set in my new office chair, > > I am thankful. And I look to those people with > a key to getting the > feng shi of my office right. too. > > more boring - that's me! > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 02:03:03 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Today in History: November 25 > > 1976: Joni joined The Band's "Last Waltz" at > the Winterland Ballroom in San Francisco. She > sang backup to Neil Young on "Helpless" and > with The Band on "Acadian Driftwood", performs > "Coyote", "Shadows And Light", and "Furry Sings > The Blues", and joins Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, > Neil Diamond, Dr John, and others for the grand > finale "I Shall Be Released." > More info: > http://www.jonimitchell.com/LastWaltz.html > - ---- > For a comprehensive reference to Joni's > appearances, > consult Joni Mitchell ~ A Chronology of > Appearances: > http://www.jonimitchell.com/appearances.html > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 02:03:03 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Today's Library Links: November 25 > > On November 25 the following items were > published: > > > 1970: "Alberta-born Singer Gets Raves in > London" - Alberta Herald > (Review - Concert) > > http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=431 > > > 1982: "More Songs About Love From Joni > Mitchell" - Rolling Stone > (Review - Album) > > http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=303 > > > 1982: "Wild Things Run Fast" - Rolling Stone > (Interview, with photographs) > > http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=302 > > > 1994: "Thirty Years With a Portable Lover" - > Los Angeles Weekly > (Biography, with photographs) > > http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=165 > > > > - -------- > Can you type? http://www.jmdl.com/typing/ > > ------------------------------ > > End of JMDL Digest V2002 #522 > ***************************** > > ------- > Post messages to the list by clicking here: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe by clicking here: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe > ------- > Siquomb, isn't she? > (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm) > unsubscribe monte
