Vote for Comment of the Week

voting closes Friday at noon.

Student #1 has left a new comment on your post "Is A Ticket A Contract?":

I think a ticket is a contract. But I think that it is a contract on both sides. The theatre, by selling someone a ticket, agrees to hold a seat for an audience member. That is their end of the contract. The audience member is expected to conform to the rules of the theatre and to not disturb other patrons, or they will be asked to leave. That is the agreement they make when they desire to go to the theatre. The no-refund policy is a little more vague. It is true that the audience doesn't agree to that until after buying the ticket. But most often the box office will inform them of this before they buy a ticket. And it is pretty much common knowledge that you will not receive a refund if you buy a ticket. So even though it is not an official contract, a ticket really is one. Because the audience expects something of the theatre, and the theatre expects something of the audience. And by buying that ticket an agreement is made. 

Student #2 has left a new comment on your post "You’re Reading Romeo & Juliet Wrong. You’re Suppos...":

I like the fact that people are thinking critically about Romeo and Juliet, but I have to point out that the prologue says that they are "A pair of star-cross'd lovers." Shakespeare himself says that they are lovers at the very beginning of the play before any characters are even introduced; and you can't argue with the exact wording of the script when you are interpreting it.
I also don't think that we are supposed to think about the relationship between Romeo and Juliet much anyway. The play is really about the consequences of having family feuds. The audience is supposed to see the tragedy that these two kids had to kill themselves to stay together because of the fighting going on between their families. Paris's whole monologue at the end is talking about how they must never fight again in remembrance of what these kids had to do. Their relationship is irrelevant; and both houses are out of heirs. 

Student #3 has left a new comment on your post "Permission to Fail":

I think this would be a great article for anyone in our Basic Design class to read. This line in particular resonates with what I think one of the main intentions of our Basic Design class may be:
"the purpose of the contemporary art school is not so much to teach students how to make art as to show them how to be artists." Throughout the year, I know that some of us have at times felt frustrated with design projects. Sometimes, it can be hard to understand what the purpose of our projects are which can make working on them confusing and challenging. But going into this semester, I have been better able to understand that this class is not so much about practical techniques as it is about teaching us how to think in order to prepare us for learning to be designers. 

Student #4 has left a new comment on your post "Life-size Titanic replica planned for Chinese them...":

This article is actually kind of disturbing to me. I feel like people sometimes forget that the sinking of the Titanic was a horrible tragedy where 1,500 people died, not just a James Cameron film. I feel like this really speaks to the effect that movies can have on our collective understanding of events. Because of this movie, the first thing people think of when they think of the Titanic is romance, not tragedy. They think of two people falling in love, not 1,500 dying in freezing water. This seems like a perfect example of this- the fact that someone thought this would be an appropriate theme park attraction seems incredibly disrespectful and disturbing. It would be like someone 100 years from now making a theme park attraction imitating 9/11- the event will no longer have the same terrible emotional connection to the people at that time, but that doesn't mean it will ever be appropriate to make light of those people's deaths. 

Student #5 has left a new comment on your post "Climate Science’s Challenge to Artists":

A noble gesture. It looks like the drive to change public opinion about the climate's endangerment is becoming more resourceful in its employment of idea-changers. Malpede suggests that a conceivable way to educate the public about the severity of the climate crisis is through art– to tug at the heartstrings of the public and inspire a movement to change climate policy. What I would add to that discussion, and would tell Ms. Malpede herself, is not to insult the intelligence of the theatre-going community. She cites the Greek tragedians enough, and their use of drama to create a forum for social and political change, but they did so through metaphorical drama, not literal interpretation. It is apparent that the general public is fed up on global warming, being shouted at by the truth-tellers and feeling manipulated by those who would have us remain ignorant. Who is going to want to go to the theatre to watch a play about climate control? I haven't seen these plays, but from the sound of it, something tells me Sniffley is unnecessary. And stupid. An audience can sympathize and digest information without it being spelled out for them. Why does dance affect us so if there are no words spoken? Why can we sit and observe, and feel something, without being told how to feel? My proposal: find a more accessible vehicle. Trust your audience will understand your analogy. If your theatre is inspirational-- not condescending and contrived-- people will want to contribute to your cause. Level with your viewers.