Los Angeles Pierce College Dance Evaluation Discussion PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED FILES BEFORE YOU DO THE ASSIGNMENT. VIEW THE FOLLOWING CLIP FROM BURN THE

Los Angeles Pierce College Dance Evaluation Discussion PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED FILES BEFORE YOU DO THE ASSIGNMENT.

VIEW THE FOLLOWING CLIP FROM BURN THE FLOOR

WRITE A DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE FIRST THREE DANCES THAT APPEAR WITHIN THE FIRST 20 MINUTES OF THIS CLIP USING THE CRITERIA FOR FORMAL CRITICISM BELOW – WRITE ONE SECTION FOR EACH DANCE USING THE FOLLOWING SUB HEADINGS AND FORMAT AS INDICATED BELOW. Note, the second dance sequence starts AT APRPOX 5:40 with the audience applause and dancers ripping their costumes off, the third dance begins AT 8:57 with the airport tower announcer.

1. DANCE #1 – CREATE YOUR OWN TITILE FOR IT THEN WRITE A PARAGRAPH FOR EACH FOR A,B,C.

A. DESCRIPTIVE

B. INTERPRETIVE

C. EVALUATIVE

2. DANCE #2 – CREATE YOUR OWN TITILE FOR IT THEN WRITE A PARAGRAPH FOR EACH FOR A,B,C.

A. DESCRIPTIVE

B. INTERPRETIVE

C. EVALUATIVE

3. DANCE #3 – CREATE YOUR OWN TITILE FOR ITTHEN WRITE A PARAGRAPH FOR EACH FOR A,B,C.

A. DESCRIPTIVE

B. INTERPRETIVE

C. EVALUATIVE Adobe Digital Editions – THEATRE 100: Introduction to the Theatre – 19317
File Edit Reading Help
Library . E
Module 4. THE ROLE OF THE CRITIC – WE ARE ALL CRITICS
But how do we know if it’s good or bad? Does it matter?
How many times have you attended an award winning, critically acclaimed movie, play or visual arts
exhibition and found yourself wondering how it received such accolades? You feel that the work does not live up
to the expectation that you had when you decided to experience it. You ask yourself: “How did I get here?” The
answer is either that you were influenced by a formal review done by a professional critic, you were told about the
artistic work by a friend or you, on your own, decided to experience the work for any number
reasons.
The reasons why we like or dislike a creative work of art at any moment in time can be many. We have
explored in this book that our personal makeup (age, gender, cultural background, educational level and personal
experiences) have much to do with our connecting with work of art as the art itself. In addition, the conditions
of the specific moment in time that we experience the work of art can also play a role in our perception and
reaction to the work. For example, if we experience a movie in an overcrowded theatre, with uncomfortable
seating and poor sound, chances are that we are not going to receive the work well and may even reject it totally.
No matter whether it’s based upon the personal make-up of the individual experiencing the work or the
characteristics of the moment in time that the work is experienced, an audience will either accept or reject it.
However, if we experience the work of art on purely an aesthetic level and judge the work of art on its own merit,
then the guidance of a professional critic would help us find the way. For example, Michelangelo’s fresco panel of
Adam receiving the gift of live from God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome while defined as a part of a
masterpiece for centuries, may not be someone’s favorite Renaissance painting. The reason for this may be purely
personal and on an individual level. However, the fact remains that the Michelangelo’s Sistine fresco is a
masterpiece because professional art critics and scholars and audiences alike have defined it as such, over the
centuries. However, it is the professional criticism that truly validates the work as a masterpiece. You might think
why should it matter what some art critic that lived hundreds of years ago thought about the Sistine Chapel ceiling
fresco? They’re not here anymore and have no relevance. Who gives professional critics the authority to say
what’s good or bad anyway?
I remember when I first attended the original opening of CATS a collaborations between T.S. Eliot (words) and
Andrew Lloyd Webber (music), produced by Cameron Mackintosh and directed by Trevor Nunn. The production
was a critically acclaimed “must see. I can still remember now, how much I disliked the show because of its weak
story and lack of memorable musical numbers. I’ve seen it at least six more times and really haven’t changed my
opinion. However, despite mixed reviews, audiences still flock to see this show and love the spectacle quality of it.
The original production which opened on the West End, London in 1981 then moved to the Winter Garden Theatre
on Broadway (1982) and ran for over seventeen years. Despite what critics thought… the audience had the final
word. Who gives professional critics the authority to say what’s good or bad anyway?
CATSO
-CATS
CATS on Broadway – 1982 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-L6rEmOrny
32 35/130)
Type here to search
O
j
9
.
B
EPIC
11:10 AM
9/17/2019
Adobe Digital Editions – THEATRE 100: Introduction to the Theatre – 19317
File Edit Reading Help
Library . E
The quick answer to the question is “because they know a lot more than we do about an artist and work of art. If
we can pull back from that statement and look at the critical issue from a larger point of view, we can understand
their function more clearly. The role of professional criticism is to examine a work of art in detail from the point of
view of an expert person who possesses comprehensive knowledge about the specific artist, the cultural period in
which they create and the underlying background information about the work itself. It is from this expert or
knowledgeable base that criticism approaches a work of art. From a modern perspective, we have become
accustomed to professional criticism evaluation a work of art by assigning it a quantitative symbol. “Two thumbs
up,” “A nine of possible ten,” “A, B, C, or D,” or “Four Stars, Three Stars, Two Stars.” However, the true role of
criticism goes beyond merely rating the appropriateness or value of a work of art. A true professional critical
review of a work of art goes far beyond informing its audience that a work of art is good or bad; it should also
describe the work to its audience creating a picture of the experience.
DESCRIPTIVE: Almost all-professional criticism contains some element of description. While there is
no specific format, most professional critical analysis will offer its audience a detailed description of the work of art
as it is experienced and perceived through the five senses of sight, touch, taste, auditory and smell. This is not to
say that a professional critic will hit these specific sensory zones equally but instead will describe the work using
these senses as a tool to convey the true essence of the work. A professional critic might not state that “visually”
the production of Romeo and Juliet was exceptional. What they might say is that the scenery was breath taking
depicting Verona a soft still countryside that acted as a frame for the conflict for the feuding families. A
professionally written piece of criticism might not hit every point equally and in the same manner. How the
professional critic observes an event or piece of art is dependent upon the individual experience of the critical
reviewer at the time they experience the work. The most important element of the professional criticism is to give
the audience of the critique an accurate description of what they can expect to experience. Professional criticism
also helps audiences to understand fully the work they are experiencing.
INTERPRETIVE: Professional criticism can provide an audience with a more comprehensive
perspective when experiencing a work of art. They can provide the background information and get the audience
up to speed so that they can fully experience the work of art. This is precisely the function of a professional critic;
to fill in the blanks that may have been created by the passage of time. A professional critic can help an audience
of a work understand the true meaning of the work when it was created and how that work is interpreted from a
modern point of view. The professional critic can also help an audience understand a new or innovative
interpretation of a work of art.
William Shakespeare’s tragedy Romeo and Juliet has been adapted from stage to film many times. The
two most recent films are the 1968 Franco Zeffirelli film and the 1996 version directed by Baz Luhrmann. The 1968
production directed by Franco Zeffirelli approached the film in a traditional manner, setting and characters in a very similar
milieu to Shakespeare had envisioned.
Romeo and Juliet (1968) – Directed by Zeffirelli
Romeo Juliet – (1996) directed by Baz Luhrmann
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcx4uPm1sVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?vOnYG_WQMheg
33 36/130)
Type here to search
O
j
9
.
B
EPIC
11:10 AM
9/17/2019
Adobe Digital Editions – THEATRE 100: Introduction to the Theatre – 19317
File Edit Reading Help
Library . E
While the 1996 production directed by Baz Luhrmann pulled out all the stops and contemporized the setting of the
original by changing the setting into a hip modern suburb of Verona and making it all take place in modern times. Luhrmann does
all this while still retaining Shakespeare’s original dialogue. So, one can assume that audience’s attending each film were
presented with William Shakespeare’s play and characters. In each film, Romeo and Juliet (the play) is presented with the same
title and intent but framed within a very different point of view. It is in this arena that the professional critic provides the audience
with a bridge into the director’s mind. The goal of this interpretive function is to provide to the audience, utilizing all of the critic’s
experience and knowledge of the subject, the fullest understanding of the artist’s intent and meaning of the work. This is not to
say that an audience is incapable of such interpretation; Audiences are free to interpret works of art in any manner they see fit,
but the function of the professional critic is to put them into the driver’s seat of the artist to experience the creative journey
through the artist’s eyes. Often the artist’s vision of a work and its relationship to a given audience is off the mark. When this
occurs the role of the professional critic is point out those deficiencies. While this may appear to be a personal attack on the
artist, it is in fact an attempt to accurate interpret the experience to the audience. Good or bad, criticism also informs an
audience about the value of a work of art and audiences look to professional critics as a higher source of validation as to whether
or not a work of art has enough merit to warrant their attention.
EVALUATIVE: Professional critics examine a work of art and measure its aesthetic value using certain criteria.
Although not limited to these, professional criticism of performing arts works often examine acting directing, set design, use of
music, staging, writing cinematography, costume, music, choreography and script. For visual arts exhibitions elements examined
might contain within each medium, lighting use of materials, line, form, use of color, and texture. These criteria for both
performing and visual arts alike serve as the basic foundation for professional criticism of a particular work of art. In addition, a
work of art may have a set of circumstances that are attached to its presentation to an audience. For example, we have
discussed in this book, how controversy can play a role in how a work of art is perceived by an audience. Professional critics can
also be influenced by external circumstances surrounding a work of art. Passion of Christ (2004) directed by Mel Gibson that
created a controversy because it was viewed as anti-Semitic also falls within this category. Professional critics could not just
discuss the aesthetic merits of the film without acknowledging the controversy surrounding it. From a popular standpoint, the
general audience may not be interested in the controversy or an analysis of each element of an artist work. Instead, all they
required is a simple quantitative rating. The aesthetic merit of a work of art is given a professional critic’s rating. An “A” or “B” or
“8 out of 10,” a number of stars or thumbs up or down which act as a quantitative symbol representing the total aesthetic value
of the work. The audience is free to explore the entire body of the criticism or simply rely on the quantitative rating. Both the
professional criticism and the quantitative rating are conveyed to an audience through media including newspapers, radio,
television, the Internet, cell phones, magazines and advertising. When used alone, the public uses these quantitative ratings as a
form of validation as to whether the work of art is worth experiencing. However, there is no interpretive analysis or description of
the work; just the rating. The body of the criticism often can be used as part of a marketing tool when individual quotes are
highlighted and included in advertising. The quotable quote: “A Thriller a minute!” “Two Thumbs Up!” “Five Stars” “A
Must See!”
These selected quotes when taken out of context and presented within the body of an advertisement
serve the same function of the quantitative ratings. However, despite the power of professional criticism to
generate audiences for a work of art, the true driver of criticism is audience word of mouth. The ultimate power of
word of mouth is driven by the informal comments and evaluations of works of art made by the audience itself.
These comments can originate from almost any non-professional source including friends, family or strangers on
the street. The idea behind word of mouth is that fellow audiences, depending on who they are, will tell you what
they feel about a work of art. These comments have no actual relationship to the measurement of any specific
criteria or knowledge about the work of art. The comments are often random and don’t always connect to any
specific criteria. “The book was much better,” “It was wonderful! At least that’s what everybody else said.””
thought it would never end. Why did it feel so long?”
Audiences can evaluate a work of art based upon the professional opinion of a trained critic or more often
rely on their own personal or responses of others. In each case, whether professional or by word of mouth, the
evaluation of the work of art is meant to provide a fuller understanding and a symbol or statement pertaining to
the aesthetic merit of the creative endeavor. The question then, is important for a work of art to be deserving of
34 (37/130)
Type here to search
j
O
9
.
B
EPIC
11:10 AM
9/17/2019
Adobe Digital Editions – THEATRE 100: Introduction to the Theatre – 19317
File Edit Reading Help
Library . E
merit in order for us to experience it? The answer is no. The relative critical acclaim of a work of art doesn’t always
guarantee that it will be experienced by an open minded and willing audience. Audiences can stay away from
certain “critically acclaimed” works for any number of reasons including the subject matter, the work of the artist
or the timing and location of the exhibition. Many critically acclaimed independent films suffer this fate because of
limited distribution or unknown talent. The reverse can also happen as well; certain works of that fall into
“popular” categories are well attended by audiences but have little or no artistic merit. The argument here is, that
if the work is of questionable origin (such as an elephant painting a self-portrait, then it’s not art but merely
spectacle. However, if it is a painting and an audience experiences and, in some instances, purchases it, then its
aesthetic value takes a back seat to its popularity. On the performing arts side of the equation, motion picture
producers often choose to produce movies that have little or no aesthetic value at all in favor of popular tastes.
These producers make a calculated assumption that an audience is willing to pay to see “Hangover 1, 2 or 3” or
“Texas Chainsaw 3D” where aesthetic consideration is abandoned all together. These commercially driven films
are made because a targeted audience finds them attractive and will always attend despite the lack of aesthetic
value. Does all of this mean that modern audiences are a mindless mass of uneducated people who prefer to
experience valueless entertainments over those of aesthetic value? Are we becoming the Romans all over again or
is something else at play?
Artists have always created good art and bad art throughout time. I’m sure that not all Renaissance
painters were Michelangelo’s or Da Vinci’s. Some of them painted for the popular tastes of the day fulfilled that
need and were forgotten. Just as film makers creating countless teen date or horror films fulfill the need for a
popular form of entertainment that a targeted audience is willing to pay for. What is different between our culture
the Renaissance is that the audience has more influence over what artistic works are created any other culture
before us. It’s all presented to us in the dazzling array of media that are now available to us. We can get it all, as
long as we are willing to pay a small fee for access. In addition, we can just as easily reject a creative endeavor by
the click of a mouse. More than ever before, the audience when measured as a demographic group or as an
individual person has the power to determine the success or failure of a creative effort.
Audiences today, know almost the same time the producers know if a movie is successful. When a movie
is released, the news reports the box office numbers as if those values have more relevance to our experiencing a
work than whether it has critical acclaim. It’s almost as if they say to us: “This movie or play made 50 million
dollars this weekend or this new television series enjoyed 20 million viewers in one night. Everyone is going to see
it. Shouldn’t you?
If something is so well attended or so
popularly viewed, do you really want
to be left out in the cultural
wilderness? Success and popularity
breed more success and popularity;
so, we attend the movie, go to the
visual art exhibition or buy those
expensive tickets to the Broadway
show because we have to. We literally
drink from the cultural well of
acceptance and in the ultimate
analysis it doesn’t really matter if
what we experience is truly good or
bad.
HAMILTON
ARRIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwboCdgzlHg
35 38/130)
Type here to search
j
O
9
.
B
EPIC
11:10 AM
9/17/2019
Adobe Digital Editions – THEATRE 100: Introduction to the Theatre – 19317
File Edit Reading Help
Library . E
A true critic ought to dwell upon excellencies rather than
imperfections, to discover the concealed beauties of a
writer, and communicate to the world such things as are
worth their observation.
Joseph Addison
Les
Misérables

The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.
Oscar Wilde
36 (39/130)
Type here to search
j
O
9
.
B
EPIC
11:10 AM
9/17/2019

Purchase answer to see full
attachment