These thoughts came about after reading an article at The New York Time on 'Useful Critiques'. On the article, Jonathan Klein, chief executive of Getty Images, expresses that:
My question is, how can the reviewer, Jelena Mihelčić, suggest that the "poor substitute" was not the best substitute for "the announced Croatian dancer", when, firstly, as the word 'substitute' implies - a person or thing acting or serving in place of another - and, when, secondly, the reviewer is making a comparison between two performers/dancers, but there wasn't, however, any thing to compare with. The "announced Croatian dancer" was 'announced', but he did not performed. Not even rehearsed! So there is nothing to compare, even to mention!
Setting aside the semantic debate, let’s try to understand what that underlying reality is. To what for is this announcement all about. Unless the author of this words knows something more about the performance piece than me - and believe me, she doesn't; or, instead, she is just being a kiss-ass. Which for a critic - someone who professionally has o maintain an analytical distance from what is being criticised -, or whatever she might call herself, is not the best professional predication. Unless she is writing as a PR manager while working for the "announced Croatian dancer"!
Fiddling around the edges allows the "artist", i.e. "the announced Croatian dancer", to get away with things; it doesn't help him, or her, to reach success. Because, "after a while, those people get into the habit of giving you incomplete work, and then you have to do it for them." And, believe me, again, you might know how to write; but you don't know how to dance.
- «Anytime someone came to me to show me their work, I would critique it. I would almost behave like a schoolteacher — my mother was a teacher — and bring out the metaphorical red pen. And what I didn’t appreciate at the time is that before you mess around the edges, you’ve got to say to yourself, “Am I going to make this significantly better, or am I going to make it only 5 or 10 percent better?” Because in fiddling over the small stuff, you take away all the empowerment. Basically it no longer becomes that person’s work. And after a while, those people get into the habit of giving you incomplete work, and then you have to do it for them.»
My question is, how can the reviewer, Jelena Mihelčić, suggest that the "poor substitute" was not the best substitute for "the announced Croatian dancer", when, firstly, as the word 'substitute' implies - a person or thing acting or serving in place of another - and, when, secondly, the reviewer is making a comparison between two performers/dancers, but there wasn't, however, any thing to compare with. The "announced Croatian dancer" was 'announced', but he did not performed. Not even rehearsed! So there is nothing to compare, even to mention!
Setting aside the semantic debate, let’s try to understand what that underlying reality is. To what for is this announcement all about. Unless the author of this words knows something more about the performance piece than me - and believe me, she doesn't; or, instead, she is just being a kiss-ass. Which for a critic - someone who professionally has o maintain an analytical distance from what is being criticised -, or whatever she might call herself, is not the best professional predication. Unless she is writing as a PR manager while working for the "announced Croatian dancer"!
Fiddling around the edges allows the "artist", i.e. "the announced Croatian dancer", to get away with things; it doesn't help him, or her, to reach success. Because, "after a while, those people get into the habit of giving you incomplete work, and then you have to do it for them." And, believe me, again, you might know how to write; but you don't know how to dance.
