The interpretation of the text or event of art (theater) will entirely be in the audience. The audience with its horizon variety is the sole ruler of the interpretation of an art event. But the story will be different when the review, or say theater criticism presented in the form of writing into our reading room.
The narration (tafsir) of the theater presented tends to be consciously or not-elaborating or even negating the meaning, and increasingly becoming unformed in the reader's head, because the process of forming this reception will depend entirely on the point of view and the horizon of the author (critic). Audience authority in interpreting events (art), thus has been transformed by the author (critic) to the reader.
This is entirely a risk. Reporting or staging criticism in the form of written data is no longer an event record on the spot. It is an analysis, point of view, as well as a mirror of the author's helplessness (critics) when dealing with complex realities, such as theatrical performances. The writing loses its objectivity because of the limitations of viewpoint and more libido-the desire to continue the partial existence of "the critic." Yet in another angle-at an unspeakable angle and impenetrable to the senses of the writer-there is a reality that is (pressed), in (hide) in (ab) ignore, even considered the last wind, which is not necessarily trivial to the other.
Positioning yourself as a spectator as well as a "critic" in an art event (theater) is like carrying a double burden. There is a kind of moral responsibility that must be borne in transforming the "message" of an event to the reader. This kind of responsibility should at least begin with a proportional perspective. Critics should at least have a "three-dimensional glasses" -in the term "eagle's Iqbal" -which is capable of capturing other things "unspoiled" by the average audience. And decipher it to the reader.
Here is the true role of critics. Translates the work with analytical blades and with other perspectives. Criticism is not a "death sentence" of artwork. Good criticism contains a number of questions, offers with alternatives of answers that are likely to be possible. Because the necessity of art in line with the inevitability of humanity relativitasnya also in line with the universe. Not selling "ketchup number three" by taking refuge in the discipline or background of the critic. And then arbitrarily accused a work of being "ugly", without ever knowing what he actually said, other than a mere incoherence reflection that led to apathy.
A critic like this is like a passionate man who comes to a chamber with a razor and plans to demonstrate the buffalo's hair-shaving technique to audiences. Unfortunately, what he encountered was no longer a buffalo, but a unit of steel tractors. However, she was forced to shave it, saying, "Oh, this crazy buffalo must have eaten the iron, so the skin is hard like this, and strangely not a feather sticks to his body."
And if there is a 'bad' theater performance, as the "critics" often say, then there is certainly a bad criticism. Reviews are stuttering. Writings that are unable to unravel what really happened on stage. This 'bad critic' is more of a problem when many writers or critics have made (just) one element (subjective), or even generalize all the elements into a frame of criticism or reportage them banal. This "preamble" criticism may invite excessive skepticism of the work of art, for it is cut off in such a way, for that partial view. Art then ceases to be a mere entertainment item, with no other value.
If so, be this "sin" of critics and writers. For, as we expect a good theater performance, each of which is synergically harmonious, forming an aesthetic whole loaded with universal messages. So, the reader should also demand something similar from the author (critic). Not by highlighting the lack of one element, but instantly it also hides the advantages of other elements. Criticism is then no more than a soliloquy or muttering incoherence of the audience that morpers itself as a "critic" of the reality it faces. This seems to be Marshall McLuhan's purpose in his famous words, "medium is message". Writing is a representation of the textual and banal "critic" horizon.
A critic should rely on standard values and standard theories in art, but not simply ignore the phenomenon. Art, including the theater, as well as other social phenomena, tends to move and change. Creativity becomes the main foundation in art. In other words, there is no standard thing that must be maintained in the work of art, except the aesthetic itself by processing it using taste values. For that, imposing art discourse with frame literer certainly has the potential to become a normative and discursive crime. Therefore, art discourse is often present not verbally and explicitly, but often a metaphorical form.
Immediately I remembered Sigmund Freud with his Psychoanalysis. Human authority in interpreting, giving meaning, whether it is self or something outside itself is not entirely autonomous, he says. Human consciousness is related to its unconsciousness. The consciousness that is plowed and constructed before its consciousness grows, and the other half is determined and constructed by the instinct of libido to survive. Marx and his revisionists, such as Lucac and Gramsci, then "completed" this thesis by stating, human consciousness is constructed by external factors and the social classes that rule and control its awareness. External factors-economics, social conditions, language, culture, ideology and so on-at least play a role in shaping human consciousness in their social relationships.
So what if the unconscious is formed-or is formed-as the mentality of the "ruled", marginalized culturally by the educational pattern of the feudal-colonial heritage? Mental slaves used to being governed in the structural hierarchy and binner relations, cause and effect, both in society and other bureaucracies that affect the "carabaca" it?
Obviously the expression of him is a kind of "hypocrisy" (in my terms). This kind of hypocrisy-the overwhelming hypocrisy of libido to continue to survive and exist-often we do, not least of critics. But excessive pessimism is clearly not the only way out, at least Einstein, as one who knows how the productive reason or human reason in solving the problems of life and the universe once said it, as quoted Goenawan Mohammad in his marginal note (Tempo, January 15, 2006) . "There is a nature in reason that limits human approach to the world. If we are innocent of reason, we are not going anywhere. "
