International Association of Libraries and Museums of the Performing Arts

Société Internationale des Bibliothèques et des Musées des Arts du Spectacle

 SIBMAS-logo

Actes du XIVe Congrès International des Bibliothèques et des Musées des Arts du Spectacle

Beograd 15-20 septembre 1980.

Beograd : 1982.

ISSN 0361-7500

Workshop:

Documentation and Theatre Criticism

Animator: M. Slobodan A. Jovanovic

pp. 171-173


M. Jovanovic provoked a lively discussion by asking if criticism could be used as a historical document and how reliable it was. He put forward three points of view:
  1. the relationship between the creative artist and the critic: to what degree does the former accept the judgment of the latter; has the critic said all that should be said about the performance and are his remarks comprehensive? The artist has studied the work for 2-3 weeks, perhaps months and sees it in a way the critic cannot approach;
  2. the point of view of the theatrical critic himself. One critic will assess the same theatrical production quite differently from another;
  3. the relationship between the critic, his writing and the historian of the theatre: can the latter rely on the critic and if so to what extent?
M. Delsemme referred to the second point and said that criticism did not always convey what the writer intended. In Belgium an experimental theatrical fiche for 1979/80 had been compiled and was to be continued; he gave some examples of items which do not appear in reports of theatrical critics: the name of the stage manager, the number of performances, revivals, scene designs, lighting effects, distribution costs and the complete cast.

M. Cluny thought that these remarks applied rather to the third point than the second as the fiche could only be completed after the performance. He pointed out that the artist was rarely satisfied with the critic's assessment for two reasons:

  1. the artist was not neccessarily the best judge of his own work;
  2. a play is not a once-for-all performance.
    For example a classical play will receive quite different performances in the 20th century from those of the 17th or 19th. The play is not seen in the same way: the text is appreciated differently and therefore takes on a time-value and a colouring unlike the original.

M. Szydowski recognised that many reproaches were levelled at critics but he could not accept that the theatrical historian could ignore the public criticism of the day. There seemed to be a complete lack of documentation on criticism and SIBMAS appeared to be the organisation which could work on such a project in conjunction with the International Theatre Yearbook. It was pointed out  that TANDEM was planning to include theatrical criticism but such a project should be carried out in co-operation with others and TANDEM would be grateful for assistance in preparing the project.

In thanking M. Szydowski for attending the Congress, the President said she was sure that a group could be set up to pursue his very valuable suggestions. She also pointed out that often scene designers  were dismissed by critics in a couple of lines, or worse still, not mentioned at all, although they might have prepared their designs after considerable research.

M. Jovanovic drew attention to another group too often ignored: translators.

R. Gasparro, a member of the National Association of Italian Critics said that the problem for a critic today was to go beyond the literary text. In principle a critic's report was subjective and concerned the themes of the play. The problem was to link all aspects of criticism together and produce a documentation of the theatre.

M. Lavoie thought that the practitioners of theatrical criticism today seemed to be guided by commercial reasons: critics who are journalists are

  1. not specifically trained for their work and
  2. expect subsidies for it.
The only interesting criticism was that written after a performance but not for publicity reasons and it should be composed with the performers in the theatre.

M. Cluny added that there were two types of criticism:

  1. daily reviews and
  2. reviews written after a lapse of time.
The first reflected the audience's failure to understand and rejection of the piece should not be ignored when making a later assessment of the work.

M. Lalic reported that already Novi Sad had taken the initiative in drawing up a bibliography of theatrical criticism from 1956-1980 which contained 12000 entries. This dealt with Yugoslav plays only.

The President asked for volunteers to follow up M. Szydowski's suggestion and collect the preliminary information. Mlle Christout, Miss Gasparro, MM. Delsemme and Blancquaert agreed to form such a group.

Dr. Zielske wished to discuss the suggestion with his colleagues and would report their reaction.
 



URL: http://www.theatrelibrary.org/sibmas/congresses/sibmas80/belgrad_19.html
 Information about this site: Maria Teresa Iovinelli, Secretary General
Last modified: 08/01/03

HOME-BIENVENUE

Rules
Statuts

Executive Committee
Comité exécutif

Institutional Members
Membres institutionnels

Joining SIBMAS
Adhérer à la SIBMAS

International Directory
Répertoire international

Congresses
Congrès

National Collections
Collections nationales

Research Sites
Sites de recherche

Partner Organisations
Organisations soeurs

WHAT'S NEW
NOUVEAUTÉS

FORUM