From: gannon@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (Mark Andrew Gannon)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
Subject: What Critics Do (Was the Bubble Guy letter campaign)
Summary: I reply to Stan, who said telling the folks at NExp what to do is
Keywords: Artists, critics
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:18:53 GMT


Stan says...

>In article <gannon.724269219@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu> gannon@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (Mark Andrew Gannon) writes:
>>gordon_Wong@mindlink.bc.ca (Gordon Wong) writes:
>>
>>>   < gives address of Pipeline Productions >
>>>   < Suggests comments concerning Bubble Man be sent there >
>>
>> <stuff deleted>
>>
>>  Paraphrased: Don't complain because the NX writers are artists
>>  examples:
>>If you were in a museum and saw a painting by one of your
>>favorite painters, but you didn't like this particular painting, would
>>you write letters to the painter?
>>Would you tell the painter how to paint?
>>  No.  That's ridiculous.  
>>
>
>Sorry Mark.  But that's exactly what critics do.
>
>Artists are not above criticism.  Aritsts / writers that sell their work
>must produce work that somebody likes or else no sale.  Mass marketers like
>TV are even more influenced by the public (as you pointed out, they always
>are watching their ratings).  Imagine what would happen to NX if all of a
>sudden the show became about the Bubble Man?  Would a lot of people stop
>watching?  Would the show stay on the air?
>
>
>-- 
>						Stan
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Sorry Stan, I still disagree.  Before we can resolve anything, I think
we need to distinguish between three groups you seem to be confusing.
The three groups are "artists," "successful artists," and "whores."
An ARTIST is a person who creates something. 
A SUCCESSFUL ARTIST is one whose "something" has touched a nerve in
somebody else, bringing good reviews and possibly financial success.
Successful artists are a subset of artists.
A WHORE is a person who will do anything you want him to for your money.

Of course artists are not above criticism.  And I will be among the
first and loudest critics when I don't like something.  But my criticism
is written for the viewers, the readers, the observers.  I tell other
persons who might find a given piece of art interesting what I thought
of that piece.  Discussion follows.  But I would never presume to tell
the artists what to do.  
For example, I could explain to you why I don't like some of Miles
Davis' work, and why I like "Kind of Blue" and "Bitches Brew" best.  It
might make for an interesting discussion.  But while Mr. Davis was
alive, I would not have even thought of writing him a letter telling him
what I don't like about some of his work and how to cut his next sides.
It is not the place of anybody except the collaborators to suggest to an 
artist what to do.  

Telling a painter how to paint is NOT "exactly what critics do."  Critics
tell the public what they saw in a given work, and the public may listen
or it may not.  (the success of "Rambo" is a good example of a huge number
of people ignoring the words of the critics.)   Gene and Roger don't
write letters to Coppola telling him how to make his next movie and
avoid another "Dracula."  They just tell us what's lousy about the movie
and let us decide whether to go or not.  They don't write letters to Jim
Jarmusch telling him what elements of "Stranger than Paradise" ought to
be expanded in his next film and which elements ought to be left out.
They just tell us what's good about his latest film and let us decide
whether to see it or not.  

I would much rather see the folks behind NExp lose their "successful
artist" status and have the show go down the drain in the ratings as
long as those folks were able to maintain their "artist" status and not
fall into whoredom.  
I feel that telling the writers how to write the show will only push
them down the road toward "whore" status a little bit faster.  I'm not
saying you shouldn't do "what critics do."  You may have seen my own 
scathing attack on the current season of NExp and especially Bubble Guy.
But I posted it on this newsgroup.  I did not mail a letter to the
writers of the show telling them how to get the magic back.  Because if
they actually listened to me, they'd be whores.  NExp is THEIR work, not
mine.  I will tell anybody who will listen what I think of that work,
but I will not try to change it.  
I think that the problem with this season is a bit of whoring on the
part of the powers that be at NExp.  It seems like they read their own
reviews and saw the mentions of how "quirky" and "offbeat" the show is,
and decided that was what was so popular, and so they'd try to make the
show more quirky and offbeat.  "If they liked the show when you guys
were just doing your thing and it seemed a bit off-center, imagine how
they'll love it when you guys are making it quirky and pushing it off
center on purpose! "
Ugh.  

So I remain opposed to the idea of sending letters to the writers of
NExp, telling them how to produce their art.  I don't think they're
going to make the show center on "Bubble Guy."  I think they're probably
already realizing how stupid the idea is and how limited the
possibilities are with this character.  But even if they do go whole hog
into the Bubble Guy thing and the show becomes his story, hey- it's
their show.  It's not mine.  It's not yours.  And if you remember the
early episodes, the show was good because of the things that made it
unique- because of the work of those writers and producers and
directors.  
Even a Wim Wenders has a "Till the End of the World" or whatever that
dog-ola was called.  So I'm willing to give the creative element at NExp
a few chances with bad plotlines or bad episodes or even a ridiculous
major character.  They've done some great things and they can still do
more.  But they won't if they're constantly looking over their
collective shoulder wondering how the letter-writers will react to a new
character or a new tidbit about Cicely or one of its inhabitants.  

That's enough for today.
As always, questions, comments, or remarks are welcome at 
gannon@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu

--Mark
  :-b

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Never do second order perturbation theory."  --Toby Falk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp