Shit on your Blog? No I’d rather not.
- February 6th, 2012
- Posted in Commentary
- Write comment
Look, I didn’t mean for this to happen.
No. I really didn’t.
I tumbled blindly, headfirst. Utterly, deeply, into this black framed abyss – a blog.
This was supposed to be a dormant archival holding-pen to keep all the zoo animals of my online writings – it wasn’t set up with any crusade nor strategy in mind. It was really just a place I could rely on to keep columns and reviews I had written for Artshub, Aussietheatre.com, Australianstage, newmatilda.com, and photos and advertising materials from my projects… a sort of cyberspace filing cabinet. That was in early 2009.
Since starting this site I have been quoted nationally and internationally on show flyers/media releases/ newspapers. I have been interrogated, insulted, personally threatened, and intimidated, ignored. I have been flown to conferences, I have been thanked and accused of being a fraud and a hack.
I have argued and defended and asserted many opinions and responses.
They have always been my own opinions and have never represented any of the arts organisations nor productions I have worked on.
No-one pays me for my opinion, or to write here. There is no grant offered to keep this type of public repository of conversation or criticism.
I sometimes fear that I may never be employed in the theatre because of it.
I am not protected nor promoted by an agent of any literary variety.
I also don’t have an editor… well that’s not true. Just as it takes a village to raise a child – it takes a community to keep my spelling and facts in check – and I have many “editors” that email corrections to me – to whom I am flattered and delighted and utterly grateful.
I often write in one sitting. I often don’t re-read what I write. I believe that what I am doing in this blog is giving a personal response to something. When I am excited or hurt or disappointed or invigorated or confused by theatre or art or the industry: I write about it. I don’t do it for fame, nor money. I do it as an outlet to help me order and articulate thoughts about my own practice. Reflecting this helps me – and might spur a conversation that reassures or invigorates others. And of course I love to celebrate great art and local artists. I care very deeply about my community of artists – and want to remind them, that they are remembered and admired and reviewed by someone who cares deeply and wants them to succeed.
This is me.
Augusta Supple.
I read all reviews, commentary I can for about an hour a day. I try to write everyday. I try to attend as many shows as I can, I aim to produce/direct/develop a certain quantity of creative work a year. I bake muffins and bread when I am stressed. I never write anything I wouldn’t say to someone’s face. I always admit when I got something wrong.
I am passionately obsessed with curation and artist and audience development.
I love playwrights.
I am very scared of and completely in love with actors.
I love working with both (playwrights and actors).
I am 32 years old.
I am not from a wealthy (nor middle class family).
I am not afraid to tell you who I am, or what I think, or to cry or laugh in front of you.
Because of this – I use my name. I write under my own name. I stand by my name. I don’t read blogs written by pseudonyms or people who won’t declare their identity. I think that is cowardly. I think one of the hardest things to be is to be honest – and sometimes it is hard to be generous – and sometimes it’s hard to be hopeful about art. But I try to be all three – and sometimes I succeed, and sometimes I don’t.
Today there was a hoo-har (an article in The Global Mail) about a blogger who writes about theatre. I’ve tried reading her. But I don’t. I’ve found her observations unhelpful and in a tone that doesn’t appeal to me, mainly because it’s been anonymous – and those that write under pseudonyms don’t interest me. Today I have chatted and responded to many facebook and twitter conversations circling about this blogger who has finally outted her identity (after 6 months of blogging). Alison Croggon has beautifully summed up her thoughts on the article (after a vigorous day of twitter) HERE
I’m not interested in writing or people that drags art or theatre down. It’s like listening to a husband who complains that his wife snores…
I value the writer/reviewer who stares at theatre like a new beautiful, impossible object and constantly asks why it is/how it is/what it is.
I’m interested in honest, clear, open discussion that is respectful and intelligent. I respect those who do not share my views or tastes. BUT above all, I value bravery.
I ask for it, I reward and celebrate it…
I’m not going to shit on anyone or their play or their blog. I don’t think that’s cool. I don’t think that’s useful. But I will ask those who delight in the style of writing that empowers the anonymous and aggressive – if this is the tone and style of the artistic conversations we should be having? Is this the best we can do for each other?
Now, don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that writing about theatre should be sweet/placid/unconfrontational. I’m not saying that blogs are good and print criticism is bad (a lot of my friends are print critics.) What I’m saying is, that we must make sure that we constantly focus on what we want our industry to be – what we want our culture to be.
I believe in conversation and critical dialogue. AND it must be honest, no question. BUT it must also be respectful. And for me that’s about tone and about identity. It’s about declaring who you are, what you want, what you believe, what you value.
And this post is to declare that I believe in honesty and bravery and generosity in the arts – from all involved critics and artists alike- but in all cases the tone and the intention must always be respectful.
In the meantime, whilst others write as they will, you’ll find me cup of tea in hand, continuing to write my internet love-letters with the hope of maintaining my passionate long-term relationship I am having with the theatre.
Good for you, Augusta! Keep on.
Gus, I have always had a bit of love/hate thing for critics…to a degree, that one persons opinion can have the potential to make or break a show. No matter how bad or good it is, that critic could have many reasons why they gave a thumbs up or down – creatively, artistically…or they could just be having a shit day at work like all of us do, and no matter what, they just can’t shake the shit day feeling. I never take a review personally. ever. I take a review creatively, constructively. It’s a response to my work, or work I am part of, and in the end that is one of the jobs artists and creatives are mean’t to do. elicit a response. What I love about blogging, is that it offers up so much more of an opinion in a much more vast and less obliging way. What’s the point of making art if no one talks about it, dissects it and discusses it? Keep it up…it’s good shit (pun intended).
Thanks for writing Mark,
lovely to read your perspective, as always…
I suspect that you just might love critics – after all you have been produced by one (me) and you are currently being directed by one (Kevin Jackson). I suspect you just might hate what they say sometimes. And I think that is good because it might provoke a further thinking on why you don’t agree – and in doing so you may strengthen your own artistic conviction.
As far as critics impacting “the make or break” of the show – I don’t really think that’s true. In the case of one of Kate Revz’s show’s she used the wildly contrasting opinions of reviewers to spruik to the public/potenital punter “come make up your own mind.” I think the producer makes or breaks a show – as does the quality of the performances and the text.
My “reviews” are not often not for audiences’ “pre-show” reading, but often they are what I refer to as a “response” to encourage an audience’s “post-show” rumination.
Thank you for your encouragement – it is very appreciated. More than you might realise.
You’re welcome Gus,
But don’t take my love/hate too seriously, it’s the only saying i could find..and it’s more economical to write than “sometimes like/and sometimes not like” I don’t hate what they say at all. I think my “love” part comes from reading a sharp and insightful review, going to the play whether it’s been given a good or bad rap, and making up my own mind, a la Kate Revz. I remember seeing her posters for Orestes 2.0 with the different types of review blurbs and thinking “that’s a pretty damn smart move”. The “hate” part probably comes from not being able to discuss it with the critic if I agree or disagree. henceforth, enter the Blog!
I enjoy reading blog responses as they are readily available for discussion. And working with KJ at the moment has been very educational in that regard.
Anyway, whether they be a theatre critic/reviewer/blogger, it all goes in to making up the whole of our impressively diverse arts community. We can’t always be nice and like everything that’s out there, but we can encourage, like you say, through healthy and honest creative discussion.
Yes indeed, blogs are wonderful like that Mark – that we can have a conversation, we can clarify, re-word (and sometimes re-think) our positions.
But I think that can only really, genuinely happen when the identity of the blogger is out there. Otherwise it’s like trying to have a meaningful conversation with a person in a cloak and a mask.
I am lucky because I have such amazing conversations with artists and critics and punters – not all conversations are easy, but all are respectful.
And that’s the tone I choose to prioritise and favour.
But it takes time and care to blog – it’s not like print whereby you write/it’s printed and then you’re done – it’s a living document – and will change with responses over time.
Thanks for this post Gus. I appreciate that your comments are always honest, despite the potential that you “may never be employed in theatre” because of them (which I certainly hope is not the case). This is what makes your site with reading. I’m not suggesting that other reviewers are not honest of course, simply that I know you don’t just roll with fashion or friendship out of fear or laziness. This is why you have so many friends.
Sorry, I mean worth reading (need your typo police).