A Questionable Review

Arlene Croce, writer of “Discussing the Undiscussable,” takes a strong stance against Bill T. Jones dance “Still/Here.” She calls his piece “undiscussable,” and refuses to even see the show that she is criticizing. She says that his form of “victim art” is not able to be reviewed by critics because it causes the critic to give it a good review out of sympathy for the victims being either portrayed or showed. While I agree that art should be able to be criticized, and that victim art is obviously more difficult to criticize, I still do believe that there is a place for it within the arts.

Art is meant to portray what is happening in real life, and what Bill T. Jones shows in his dance are very prevalent issues currently in the world. Degenerative diseases such as AIDS, and HIV have grown in numbers since their outbreak, and continue to grow. How a producer decided to incorporate that into their works should be left to the producer. The job of the critic is to review a pice for what it is If the incorporation being done by the producer is considered in bad taste by the critic then the critic can give a poor review. In any case, it should be difficult for a critic to give a bad review, so reviewing victim art poorly should be just as difficult.

I think it is unfair for Croce to give the show a negative review without seeing it because of the ideas used by Jones. As she said, a critic has the option to not review a show that they see and that might have been the best option for her with this show. If she feels that she can’t give a proper review because of her sympathy, then she should just not review the show. I don’t agree with her idea that she can review certain shows without even seeing them and feel that it takes away from her credibility as a critic.