|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Feb 14, 2013 22:50:52 GMT -5
Lyn Gardner, who writes about theatre in The Guardian, is running a histrionic discussion about why plays have intervals: www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2013/feb/14/are-theatre-intervals-necessary-threadMissing from all discussion is the idea that there has to be a moment where you shift the scenery. It strikes me as more than astonishing that someone who has set themselves up as a 'theatre critic' would be so astoundingly ignorant? But no, perhaps she thinks it's just like the telly or a film?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 0:25:43 GMT -5
As it happened, only to-day I looked at the Guardian's "web-site," and found it amazingly childish and trivial. Many many moons ago I was accustomed to rising early and reading the Guardian daily. (Even Oscar Wilde had to take the tube.) Does that poor "web-site" really reflect the tastes of the present generation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 1:15:39 GMT -5
Good morning to Neil McGowan and Sydney Grew! If I may address all three of your questions directly:  In Lyn Gardner's defence, I would add that as a critic, I, too, am astoundingly ignorant. I know nothing, Neil McGowan, less than nothing. I suppose that the practical choice here is whether to sit through a scene change in silence in a darkened auditorium, or to get up and have a drink at the bar. I think that what I would say about a visit to the theatre, as opposed to the idiot box or even the cinema, is that it is a profoundly social experience. I ought to interact, however passively, with the performers, and with the rest of the audience. If I do not clap at the end, for example, there has to be a good reason. www.guardian.co.uk/I suspect so. ' The Guardian', known until 1959 as The Manchester Guardian (founded 1821), is a British national daily newspaper. Currently edited by Alan Rusbridger, it has grown from a nineteenth-century local paper to a national paper associated with a complex organisational structure and international multimedia and web presence. The Guardian in paper form had a certified average daily circulation of 204,222, behind The Daily Telegraph and The Times, but ahead of The Independent. The newspaper's online offering is the second most popular British newspaper website, behind the Daily Mail's Mail Online. The Guardian currently identifies with social liberalism. In the last UK general election in 2010 the paper supported the Liberal Democrats, who went on to form a coalition government with the Conservatives. The paper is influential in the design and publishing arena, sponsoring many awards in these areas. It is traditionally strong in the arts and culture, Sydney Grew. To be honest, I have never really been a Guardian reader, although I know many people who are. Personally, I prefer to read the FT, although it can be a little dry. www.ft.com/Upon reflection, what we read, and what we do, helps define our individual and collective identity. As for the BBC, its website is one of the most visited in Britain. www.bbc.co.uk/Online, the BBC cannot compete with the likes of Google, Facebook and YouTube. www.alexa.com/topsitesMy own feeling would be that websites are designed to attract web traffic, so they are, in a sense, a good reflection of what attracts web traffic. Google is currently the most successful. www.google.com/As for the tastes of the present generation, we vary? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 6:52:53 GMT -5
. . . I know nothing, . . . less than nothing. It is conceivable that you have forgotten everything you once knew; put into algebra that might be: 0 + 100 = 100; time passes; 100 - 100 = 0 One may even forget that one ever knew anything may one not? (Kleines c has not yet reached that stage.) But what does "less than nothing" convey? Does negative knowledge consist of items one is certain one knows but which are - one later discovers - not like that at all? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 7:01:06 GMT -5
I meant to suggest that everything I once knew has turned out to be mistaken, Sydney Grew. In science, we are used to the concept of the half-life of knowledge, which currently runs at something like eighteen months.
This means that half of what I knew eighteen months ago turns out to be wrong. Of course, it is an exaggeration for me to claim that I know less than nothing.
But what if my own feelings about a particular work of art, for example a dramatic performance, are reversed?
|
|
