Similar to many questions asked last week, here is my first question (but, don't worry, I'll try to answer it): Is there a distinction to be made between whether a performance is good or bad and whether or not someone likes it? Similarly, is there a sort of rubric to a reading (that the expert reading audience members may adhere to) where audience members can somewhat objectively gauge a reading?
Concerning my first question, I believe that whether one thinks that a reading is good or not is, as Tony said, subjective. I mean, Quartermain believes that a very theatrical reading is awful, but, from what he said, I thought it sounded much more engaging than some of the older recorded readings we listened to last week (perhaps one reason is because I enjoy theatre and used to do it in high school) (219). Then again, I didn’t witness the reading, so I could also see how that type of performance has the potential to be annoying. But also, it could be widely accepted that one reading is good if the majority of the elitist reading attendees think it’s good, akin to the literature canon, right?
Also, going back to last week, we discussed noise and sound. I agree that noise is more of a “ruckus” as Dr. Baldwin stated. Just like how too much white space in a document can be distracting (or the opposite with not enough white space), it seems that the same goes for readings: too much of a pause could be considered a problem due to a lack of noise (I’m using the word noise because it would be considered annoying), or, again, too much going on can also be distracting just like how I imagine that Mac Low’s “The Young Turtle Assymetries” would distract me because there are so many voices going on at once, like at a party (if you knew me or had me as an instructor, you’d know that I am easily distracted anyway). This ties into the seeming subjectivity as to whether a performance is good or bad because, as I believe someone mentioned in class last week, noise (ruckus) to one person could be just sounds to another person (while some of the performances we listened to for tomorrow’s class may be considered noise to some and mere appealing sounds to another). I hope that this serves as a partial answer to the first question I asked today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In terms of the first question: To some degree the terms determine your answer. Good/bad is based on the object or work (or on production), while enjoy/not enjoy is based on the performance or on reception. I think no one would disagree on the subjectivity of reception, but isn't the harder question whether there's a connection or structure that crosses these? How does the subject's pleasure or not relate to the object? (Aesthetic theory would ground response in the object.) What are the consequences if it does not? (Then the object is to some degree unreachable.) So, this has some consequences.
ReplyDeleteQ2: So, there's a distinction between an excluded noise (background, ambient) and noise that is in the fabric of the event/message and that may or may not interrupt. The analogy with print is: excluded noise would be beyond the page, perhaps all the objects in the world or perhaps darkness; whereas the other kind is again things like white space. One interesting question is about in-between phenomena. Is a blot on the page or a spelling mistake part of the message/text or is it an intrusion? So to with sound: is a cough or laugh part of the thing or not? Some of the answer is tied to how the event/object is framed.