Tonight I went for a friend's performance, his debut rather, and it was quite a startling show on many accounts. The themes, the execution, the scriptwriting and of course the acting. It was startling in both the good and the bad. So my friend asked me for my opinion, and being the mean spiteful person I was, I said something along the lines of "if you are looking for good things, don't ask me for my comment."
I suppose I should have added the line, "because I believe that critique will bring you to a better place in the next show, and things we should take into account when we're putting up a show."
It can be taken out of context some what, and a ensuing whatsapp disagreement over the reception of a group's self-composed/performed music was somewhat of a dicey issue - which ended on a "it's subjective" mode. This conversation inspired me (such an over-used term in Art and Fashion) to write about a subject that used to bother me.
I have raised the ire of many of my friends before, when I say things that are too "harsh" or "hurtful" about their beings and selves. At that point of time, I did not possess the wisdom nor perspective to understand this "hurt" I was causing them. Perhaps, I assumed everyone liked improvements. However, friends are not projects or marble, they cannot be sculpted by chisels or hammers. Hard knocks may not always be the best option when interacting with people. University might have helped given me more insight, but it has also equipped me with a sharper wit and tongue, and the wound still bleeds despite it being surgically cut.
Over much heartache and learning curves, I'm trying to mitigate this problem to a minimum. So tonight's show was particularly challenging to me - does my friend want to hear a friend's review, or a peer review. I remember a seminar where the professor advised against us giving our friends to read drafts because they will only see good things and that's not what work is all about. As academics, writers, even artists, a perspective outside of the visionary square is crucial, because sometimes we have our blind spots. While art and writing is mean to communicate to an audience (no matter how small or esoteric), gathering critique becomes paramount to open our eyes to the performative process. Unless we are writing to ourselves, the audience reaction is important because it completes the circuit. Therefore a peer review is an objective third party critique of these perspectives - thing we might miss or not take into consideration, or rather make trivial in view that other things might be more important.
However peer review can become personal, when the person is both a peer and a friend. I've come to learnt to create the division between this person as both a Friend and a Peer. After all, they review because they care (hence the friend), and offer their frank insight because one asks for it (a peer). This does not always bode well for everyone, and it can be taken the wrong way, as being stubborn in my perspective, or not willing to open to see things from their perspective. Yet it is also true, that some times when we ask for opinions, we are anticipating the praises and get sorely disappointed with others when the reaction is not a courtesy, "it was good". I also understand, not everyone can accept critique easily, and cannot come to an understanding to separate friend review from peer, because cerebrally they cannot unlink the dissonance.
"How can a friend say such mean things? If s/he was really a friend, they would support me."
I think artists have this perennial problem, that they want to project an individual point of view, at the same time also capture the widest audience where they are able to also allow their work to transport beyond their writing tablets. When in theatre, when we ask our friends to watch our show, it's difficult to get critique that is directly beneficial to our work because our friends will be kind in their comments, lest they lose your friendship. Or, they would be "in-the-know" with you, and lose the critical perspective they need to give you a "peer review". I admit being swayed, and cannot stand for my friends' writing/acting, because I understand him. I cannot speak for the rest of the audience. Given that this was a cold market, an audience that is completely unknown, would they watch it without the obligatory duty of friendship? So what remains of this "artwork" if the only reaction becomes a tepid indifference towards an audience you can never hope to capture?
My friend once told me what her tutor at Goldsmith College advised. Art should generate a reaction. If draws pleasure and positivity, then all is good. If it is reacted negatively, at least there is something to improve on. However, if the work generations indifference, then it's as good as it not being created, and that is the worst place to be. I agree wholeheartedly - and that's what "Subjectivity" means to me. Subjectivity is about reception: both the good and the bad. As an artist we are constantly being judged, the question is whether we can let our egos go and accept the critique (both peer and friend), which allows us to draw more perspective to enrich our work in the long run.
The question remains if we have the tongue to deliver words smoothly to the listener, or if the listener have ears of steel and hearts of gold to receive with grace and dignity.
No comments:
Post a Comment