How Does One Identify Good Art? (Part 2)

 

So, in part 1 I started the article with the questions about those who produce good art, and how when it comes to creating good arts, one must not only just focus about the content itself, one must also ensure the affordability and accessibility of the performance to the audience. How is this then related? As an audience, when you watch a performance and when you visit a gallery, you have to think about what you’re investing—the amount of time you spent at the gallery or at the performance, the amount of money you have spent on the tickets and the amount of effort you have put in to be present for the gallery or the performance; of course you’d expect for the payoff to be equivalent. Simple logic of input versus output, or in this case, investment in time, money and effort versus the quality of the performance. The more inconvenient or expensive you make it for the patrons/ audience, of course they will then have a higher expectation. If we were to look at it from this perspective, then it seems that the quality of a piece of creative work is subjective and is based on the idea of accessibility and convenience.

How about the work itself? Surely, some importance would be placed on the work!

Here is what I discovered so far; sometimes the people involved in the production takes precedence over the quality of the work itself. For example, let’s reflect on our purchasing process as an audience. Before we decide on purchasing our tickets for a production, what would we look at? Chances are, we would look at past credentials; have the work been staged before; what are some of the past works put up by the company; who is directing the piece; who are the actors involved in the production? These are some of the questions that we tend to ask ourselves before putting aside our money for a production. There are some of us who would even go further—we would even check if that particular production has won any form of accolades such as Straits Times Life Theatre Award, Critics’ Circle Theatre Awards, Tony Awards, Drama Desk Award or UK Theatre Awards, to name the few. I remember many years back when the musical, The Phantom of The Opera, made its way to Singapore, I was actually very excited to buy the tickets. Then a friend came to me and asked if the production is from Australia or UK. Of course, at that point of time, I didn’t think it matter. However, now, I realised the reason behind that question—if the production was brought from the UK, chances are, the production will be made of the original team, and in the case of The Phantom of The Opera, an audience may therefore expect that the performance will feature the original casts such as Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford. Whereas, if the production was put up by the team from Australia, the performance may feature other actors such as Antony Warlow and Marina Prior instead. And knowing my friend, he would have preferred a Sarah Brightman performance, anytime, anywhere. So there is the prejudice towards what has been and what the performance review were based upon.

In my opinion, there is a downfall to this. While there is the belief that some actors remain good over the years, one cannot deny that there are times when an actor or a director does not perform up to par, or up to their usual standards, after being in the industry for a certain amount of years. It could be due to jadedness, depression, personal life crisis or just simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are also times, when certain actors somehow rose and went beyond and above their own usual standards/ performance, maybe due to awesome casting by the casting directors. In short, life does not remain… we call it in Latin, “Ceteris Paribus”, in which a change does not incite other changes in other variables. A performance, be it musical, drama or dance, is highly volatile and highly collaborative. A change in one collaborator will definitely affect a change in the dynamics of the production. As such, if we were to blindside ourselves with pre-emptive expectations or past achievements and accolades, we will never be able to see the changes in a production and thus evaluate it based on its current merits. The keyword here is current. In fact, there is this known fact that a live performance will never be the same even within the current season. What you see tonight, may be different in another performance, the next night. The pacing, the feel, the reactions, they may all be different, sometimes more subtle than in other nights. But there is a change. The way the performance affects an audience may also differ—which is why, you will sometimes find theatre critics coming to the same show on different nights, watching intently before they evaluate and critic the piece.

So then, how do you evaluate a good piece of art? First, go without expectation. Do not be influence by the team’s past credentials, past works, past accolades. Next, go on multiple nights of the performance or look at the piece of work multiple times, from different perspectives and angle, and watch that same performance/ piece of art with the same level of enthusiasm. Only then, will you be able to say that you have identified Good Art. Or otherwise.