 Hello everyone and welcome to Burning Questions by Arts Equator. I'm Cathy Rowland, the co-founder of Arts Equator. So as our panelists join us, we have our moderated Nabilah site already with us. Our panelists will be joining us shortly. I'll go through some of the housekeeping so we can actually be ready to start. If you're joining us in Zoom with us today, please request, we request that you keep your video and audio off. This session is being recorded and a video will be made available online at a later date. This session is also being live streamed to the community at HowlRound.com, which is the theatre commons with an international presence. Today we are joined by our audiences watching on HowlRound's website as well as its Facebook pages. Arts Equator is a regional and digital platform that is dedicated to covering the arts in Singapore and Southeast Asia. You'll find us at artsequator.com. Burning Questions is a series which attempts to ask some big questions. It offers spaces for regional voices to discuss some of the unasked questions facing the arts community at a time when we are all facing a pandemic. Our objective is really less about finding answers but more to articulate how we are at this moment in the hopes that we may be able to find some connections with one another during this time. This series is supported by Splice Lights On with live stream support from HowlRound TV. The recordings over the past three panels have been uploaded on our website and we'll share the links in the chat. This evening for our final panel, we have the topic of can critics criticise during a pandemic. This panel is the only Singapore panel out of the series of four that we've held so far. And it's part of the critics reading group programme that Arts Equator organised which went from October 2018 to March of 2020 with the support of the National Arts Council. Now before I hand you over to our moderator Nabilah Said and the speakers for the session, just a short note about the Q&A. We'll be keeping the Q&A for the last 30 minutes and we request that if you do have questions to please type that into the Zoom chat. For those of you who are watching on live stream, you can also put your questions in the Facebook chat and we'll make sure that those are redirected back to the panellists and to the moderator. Thank you and with that I'll leave you with Nabilah and our four great Singaporean speakers. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you, Cathy. Thanks so much, Cathy, for the introduction. Usually I do the introduction so it was quite a weird experience. But today I am moderating this panel with this very spicy question of can critics criticise in a pandemic. And just a bit of introduction, I guess, like with more and more performances going online, the whole idea is how do critics respond and I feel like that is one part of the kind of layer of the question. The other layer is we are in a pandemic. So what is our role and how does our role change? You know, where do we put criticality during a pandemic because I don't think we really put it aside like it goes, it goes somewhere, right? And today we'll kind of talk a bit about that. When it comes to critiquing how people are responding to a pandemic, there are many ways that we can look at it. For example, you can look at it from the perspective of how a government handles a national crisis. You can look at it as how people police, people's bodies and movements and even ideas during this time. Because today we are looking at ourselves as art critics, as cultural critics, but even then I feel like these kinds of very strict boundaries, it's very hard to keep to them even then. And I feel that day two require re-examining. So when we are looking at a piece of artwork, I find that you cannot really divorce yourselves from the fact that we are dealing with this larger thing going on. And some of the ideas and words that I've just said have a violent edge to them. So as critics, do we blunt the violence of the times that we're living now or do we expose the violence for what it is or more? This is just a little provocation for my speakers before we go into the rest of it. And I don't want to get ahead of myself. So firstly, thank you so much, Jermaine, Joslyn, Zahan and Selting for joining me. If you haven't already, you can switch on your audio so we can start getting into the discussion proper. So my first question, I'm going straight into it, so warning. And also to help to introduce yourselves to the audience who may not be familiar with your work at the moment. Can you tell us, describe the kind of critic that you are and how does the practice of criticism actually fit within your artistic practice? Who wants to start first? Zahan, you broke the silence so. Okay, I'll do the difficult tasks of starting first. Hi, my name is Zahan. I'm pursuing my PhD in performance studies. And I consider myself more of a performance practitioner, especially within the Singaporean context. But over the years, I've written a couple of short pieces of criticisms for arts equator. And these are mainly in the realm of experimental performance and social practice. My personal area of research is mainly focused on performance history in Singapore, particularly around the restriction of licensing and funding of performance art from 1994 to 2003 in Singapore. And so the practice of criticism extends beyond my own work and also the work of others to like what you mentioned earlier, like a criticism of the state's regulatory gestures of arts and culture in Singapore. Thank you, Zahan. I'm going by the order of my Zoom. So, Joslyn. Okay, hi, I'm Joslyn. And I'm a practitioner writer and educator in both downtown theater. As a writer, as someone who writes reviews, I come very much from a phenomenological perspective. So I believe that one's experience of watching a performance is precisely that is precisely a full body experience. And that cannot be separated from your past memories and knowledge and, you know, whatever you're feeling right now, you're too hot, too cold, too much for dinner, all of those things are valid. And I believe that those experiences, it should not be different whether you are a regular audience member or whether you're there on assignment to write about it. So I believe that once writing about the experience will always be subjective, which I guess maybe is different from how some other writers may approach it. But also I'd like to note that being subjective or acknowledging the subjective is not the same as writing things that are unsubstantiated. Yeah, so as for how writing or reviewing sits within my wider practice, I mean, because I also create work myself, I produce, I teach. And I see my writing as part of this wider practice, part of the wider art ecosystem that we are in. Yeah, that we need more conversation in general about work and about how people are doing things, how, you know, kind of what's out there and that really helps and informs my own work, it informs my teaching and really it's just so interconnected. Thanks, Jaws. Xiao Ting, let's hear from you. Hi, I'm Xiao Ting. Thanks for being here with us today. So I write. I think that's the thing that I primarily do and I've been writing criticism about it when I say criticism, I don't mean like criticism, but like an expensive more criticism which is really just listening very deeply and also just being present and like sharing all of that how I feel what I think of during the course of the performance and then to translate that into like something else and that something else need not always be worth. It can be like private emails, voice messages by all these small things as long as it's a communication and then something that I do privately that not a lot of people know is that I just blow bubbles. I mean, I think that though bubbles to make double drawings, like to make it clear. And I think that also ties in how criticism lies in my wider artistic practice in a sense that because when you blow bubbles you just observe. And like doubles are very sensitive things like just like how performances like what Justin was saying like it can be affected by like 10,000 things like the temperature and all those things. Yeah, so criticism really is just about listening and how to utilize that listening and what you have absorbed and like you know to like pass out inside a vessel in a sense. Yeah. Thank you. Jamie and how about you. Hi, I'm Jermaine I so just actually going on from what something said, I think I see my criticism as a kind of transmission. And the image that comes to mind is like it's like the call telephone court. So it's not something that's like clean or that's linear but it can ban it can twist and it has tension. And, and I'm primarily a dance artist but I started getting into criticism because I just wanted to be able to see more to be exposed to more performances. And I think now with my interest and my baby steps into dramaturgy I think that there are a lot of overlaps in terms of the criticality, but also the care that informs like both these facets of my practice. Thank you so much for that. I think I was just thinking while preparing for this panel about how like, I think historically, the role of the critic has has evolved so much. Primarily like in the early days it was definitely like more of like the mainstream media who was like printing a lot of these reviews or maybe the main mode of reviewing was in the mainstream media and definitely like the streets times. And to get a review was like, you know, it's almost like very, it was very difficult to do and a review could, I mean, not in the same way that they do in like let's say London on New York, but a review can affect your career in a negative way, you know. So I felt I feel like historically the relationship between the artist and the reviewer has been a lot more fraught. And there was one person that will be the reviewer, you know, if a capital R almost. And I think with the five of us even as a kind of like a microcosm, we are seeing how we are not just reviewers right we are also artists we are also poets we are bubble blowers we are dancers and movers. So it becomes like, it becomes a kind of like a layered kind of I don't know I feel like criticism becomes embedded within a larger thing, whatever that thing is and with each five of us the thing that thing is different you know, which is kind of cool. But maybe leading on to my next question because I've not really talked about we've not talked about the pandemic at all with with the fact that first question. You as a critic responded to COVID-19, like, what kind of questions or thoughts have run through your mind as you think about your role as a critic. Maybe I'll start since I'm, I'm also part of the reading group and you know try to be fair a bit. Exactly as the editor of Art Secretor, there was a time where I felt like I needed, we needed, we needed, we needed almost like a moratorium on reviews, you know, for a while, just especially that first part of the circuit breaker when it was really like people were saying like it felt like a grieving kind of period, you know, there are people who who are on their sofas not knowing what to do because they couldn't make art because the theaters were closed. And for our Art Secretor website, it really felt like it wasn't the right time to be publishing reviews. I mean, of course, there wasn't a lot of art to that was happening anyway. But if there was the, you know, there was some like smaller kind of shows that people were doing, or even putting all works online, it definitely didn't feel like it was the right time for us to publish any reviews, basically. So that was like from my perspective, I definitely felt like as a reviewer, I almost felt like I didn't have, I just like physically couldn't, like physically could not, you know, so yeah, how did you guys react to the pandemic? Because it's sort of leading off from the earlier point that you made about the monopoly that the critic used to have via mainstream media to like pronounce or have a verdict on the performance and how that has shifted. And particularly, I think the pandemic and COVID has already, you know, it's like people are talking about it as the great level of sorts. You know, it's a more distributed kind of sense of power and excess. And because of the pandemic, we are realizing that certain inequalities are bubbling to the surface. So if we consider that and extend it to the role of the cultural critic, I think that's also happening in a way. So, unlike the past when the critic used to have the final say and articulates the authoritative version of the production that eventually makes it to the archive, that people will reference in the future with COVID and digitalization of performances, excess is not necessarily restricted to the live event. And of course that changes and transforms the very notion of performance, but at the same time it expands a certain potential. And in the beginning of the pandemic, there's this interesting phenomena of various theater companies rushing both in Singapore and internationally to release archival videos. And that moment was interesting for me because some of these productions I missed when I was like a theater goer or maybe I was out of the country and because they are live, you know, you would not have access to them otherwise. And some of them are like international productions that we would never be able to watch because we never had the opportunity to travel. So you could actually watch the production, the archival document and do like a critical review of the critics and their version of how they read it in the past and also collate various response and then verify or, you know, there's a there's a very addiction process where you check whether it can be released with your understanding and experience of the piece itself. So that was an interesting phenomena that happened in the beginning. I'll pause it and let the rest answer before I go. The pandemic actually brought like me to ask more micro questions. I think I made it very clear that there's a difference between drawing, like watching something and forming an impression of critic and drawing the thread together and delivering the critic. So those two are very different things and the pandemic somehow like something I realized is that it's become more intimate, like rather than publishing something like a one to many kind of way it became more like one to one, or even like one to two. And I think like it kind of brought back the mode of critic as a conversation as opposed to like, you know, like what's the final thing. Like carry on the conversation. So you actually do that, like, right to the artist or something. Yeah, I did. And it's very informal. It's a human to human. It's not like critic to artists. Because I don't resonate with the whole like critic being the sole holder of power. I think that's ridiculous to me. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for that. Joss or Jameen. Yeah, I think like what you said, Nabilah, I was also very much struck by that initial period where, you know, everyone's just frozen and there's this grief. In fact, I actually maybe I had a period of about two to three weeks where I just refused to watch anything. And when I eventually picked myself up and started to like, okay, I also felt slightly guilty because I was like, okay, as a, you know, as someone in the field and I need to practice and I need to keep on top of everything. So that was the entirety coming in as well. So I started to watch. But I think resonating with quite with what the rest of has said also it's more of I think what happened. What I mean what tended to happen was because we were also having a lot of watch parties having friends in small groups watching together so the so called critical analysis also happens on that level. It was more of having discussions with friends after after watching the performance. I felt hesitant for a long time to actually put anything that's like written and that's out there but it's more we are it became a very much more close need kind of thing. Jameen, feel free to jump in but I just quickly quickly say that like, so me and Cory Tan who who, Cory who actually moderated the last panel last week on intimacy. We actually, because we didn't know how to review we decided to co-write a P an article that was about not knowing how to review. So we wrote like a 5000 word essay about not knowing what to write which is ironic but not not an unexpected from from us I suppose. Yeah, Jameen what about you, what were your kind of responses to what's happening. I think I've been really quite quiet throughout this whole period just because I don't know whether it's something that didn't exist before but I think it's heightened now that I feel like I don't want to put anything out lightly or without sufficient like thought or like just for the sake of like publishing something or putting out a video. And I feel like, yeah, just having that huge rush of things online popping up made me realize that I really needed to have a reason to put something up. Yeah, rather than just kind of like throwing out a response very quickly. Yeah. For sure. Thanks for that, Jameen. So we actually have a poll for the audience. I don't think we've done it yet. So we have a very cheeky question for the audience. You should be seeing now. Yeah, with that question. Criticism is an essential act during the pandemic. Yes or no. As it goes with this poll, it's always yes or no. There's no gray area. Very terrible. But yeah, I'm looking at the results. It's quite interesting. I don't know whether panelists, can you see? No, right? Okay, we'll give a few more seconds for people. It happens with life events. Yeah, so I think everyone, more or less everyone has voted. So it is 82% of people say that criticism is an essential act during the pandemic. And 18% say no, which is quite interesting. Of course, when I was doing this poll, I purposely used the word essential, which if you're a Singaporean, you would know why. Just because this idea of whether arts is essential or non-essential became kind of a point of contention in Singapore. I put criticism there because we are really the centre of attention critics. So it's a rare time for us to be part of a poll like this. But it's quite interesting to see. And I think it's quite heartening to see this response that 82% say that it's essential. Yeah, I don't know whether anyone wants to respond to that. This is not planned, but are we essential guys? Criticality is always essential, regardless of whatever you put out. Because I think like I resonate with what Jermaine was talking about, you know, like there's like 10,000 things out there. But criticality doesn't mean you have to shout out your criticality. I think the way you interface with the world, like interpersonally in the small circles are also. I don't know. When I read that question, the poll, I was thinking of criticality is our criticism. So I edited your question in my head. That's fine. That's fine. Yeah, I mean, it's a bit of a cheeky thing. I mean, there's a reason why this whole burning questions is also called, I also named, titled the question as like can critics criticise in a pandemic? It's not really about it. The critic can be anyone is not like just the five of us in this in this panel, you know, but have, has anyone tried writing and have you felt that you needed to like recalibrate or maybe even like soften your eye as a critic? And going what, what Xiao Ting said, firstly, the first part of my response is that, yeah, I think criticism is a very dirty word in the Singapore context, unfortunately. But, you know, I mean, as a, even when starting lead, everything you lead students would know that criticism is a neutral word. It's not supposed to be a life or that, you know, so it's, that's the way I approach it. All the time, in any context, and I think it would pandemic or not, right. But so having said that within this, I mean, in this period, I did recently have to write a review, I was asked to write a review by articulator on PHE's recent performance, pure. And it was, it was quite a challenging thing to do. I mean, having said that, yeah, I was actually very resistant to putting anything out there and for reasons that we've all mentioned. But I believe that in general, a review always should have a balance or should have both contextualization as well as, you know, kind of your other traditional critique, right, in terms of staging elements and whatnot. So the, you know, kind of in this situation, what I felt was appropriate to do was to dial up that the volume on the contextualization, you know, rather than focus and harp on the other aspects of the work in particular. And I, and the context that we are in right now is that that a lot of productions being put online or being created for for an online platform. And, no, but what, you know, what what I was reflecting on was that we are, as artists, actually very ill equipped to, I mean, most of us, I would say would be not not that not that well equipped to create work for online mediums. We were so used with decades of experience in the theater doing live thing doing performance performances, you know, physical space, right. So it's, it's not anybody's fault. And it's, of course, we are grappling with this, this entirely new thing. And, you know, actually the artists who are doing those who are doing the work now are the ones putting themselves at the forefront and trying to experiment and maybe fail and maybe succeed, but, you know, it's all an experiment. So, so, I mean, put those to them, right. Yeah, so that was kind of what I was, what I focused on in the review was more about the art form and what kind of, you know, we really lack the language to deal with that how can we or rather it remains to be seen what the, what artists in Singapore will, will kind of move towards. Yeah. Yeah, it's almost like, like, there's this moving thing and like we're trying to pin it, but it's still moving, you know, so like, you're only pinning it at a kind of temporary spot. So, so that that act of pinning is also, yeah, is what I guess we're I'm grappling with. I shared the link to Joseph's review in the chat for anyone who wants to read it. Yeah. I mean, or I mean, you want to respond to that. I haven't written anything per se. I've had conversations with artists who have put up performances. And I think it's, I guess it's quite nice to reciprocate the amount of intimacy that they're trying to put up in their performances with my own intimacy of providing a response as opposed to just kind of throwing 400 words up somewhere. And so I saw something in June by an artist called Merlin Chow. So she's primarily a dance artist, but she's actually moving into physical theater. And she put up a show called intimacy currency and when we had a conversation about it, maybe about a week after. I think I started the conversation by saying that let's discuss this as friends. I think I was very clear about the stance that I wanted to take that I, yeah, I could provide a certain like critical point of view but I was also going to make sure that I spoke with care with a certain amount of caution. Because obviously, like maybe I mean there are elements of a performance that require a certain level of vulnerability. And I couldn't go into it. Like completely like oh I'm just an audience member that locked in to watch you on zoom. And she actually shared that some of the things that she decided to put up in the performance. She might not have chosen to do if she had staged it live. So I think that's also a testament to the amount of the level of vulnerability that she decided to put out. Yeah, in the performance. So thinking about how I think one of the earliest online shows in Singapore was the Corona locks by Singapore Repertory Theater. And I think there was a lot of excitement about when the show was, you know, about to like be live on Facebook. And then after that there was a review on the streets times which which I think it was a review from the streets times that was very much like a review from the streets times you know. But I think I feel like there were some of the people involved who were not so happy with some of the maybe less positive ways that the show was being talked about. And I thought that was like quite an interesting thing to kind of witness. And for me, of course, I was just glad that I wasn't in that position of course as a reviewer but also seeing like you almost follow the lead. The question for me as a reviewer is do I follow the lead of the artist like do I only wait for the artist to invite criticism then I get criticism because that feels like a bit strange as well like because we don't always get the invitation you know. And if we wait for an invitation what if we regress back to how it was in like back then in Singapore when when artists were a bit more in opposition to reviewers because then I think that's a bit dangerous as well. So yeah I thought that was quite interesting. There's a question. Let's see. Oh, let's take this question to make it interesting. How do we draw the boundaries between talking about works by your with your friends versus how you talk about it in a formal context. I think shouting spoke a little bit about this like a review that's like this big review versus just, you know, talking about it with your friends. Do you want to respond to that setting. I think the difference is that when you're talking to your friends they already know where you're coming from. It's really a shared context and understanding and most probably you watch the same thing. But when you're when the audience is a lot larger like there are not people that you know that right I think there needs to be a lot more care and text I think because with friends you can just say things as it is and if they don't understand or they take offense they can ask you immediately in a conversation. And it's a review. Like you have no idea what kind of like what kind of friend of mine to approach the read like the review like there is always this gap in between the river and the reviewer and the recipient. So I think I just now Jimmy was talking about care. And I think like that's something that I've been thinking a lot about because I think when it comes to criticism that I don't think like you should just avoid that criticism like if you really don't really like it's not to like just avoid it altogether but more like how do you frame it in such a way that speaks care careingly is caring caring. Yeah, careingly. Yeah. Just to add on to that. I think that's this interesting because the question basically was asking about boundaries right and how do you draw boundaries and what we have witnessed with everything that's going on is a breakdown of the boundaries of what is considered like work and home and public and private. So with that as a as a fall out of that as you know, then the role of the critic also has to be interrogated in a way where it's no longer like the artist and the critic where that boundary is also like in public private also blurred and just to add on to what everybody has already been saying you know is that act of criticism as an intimate act. You know, as something that is caring and sort of QQ rating which the root of the word is basically caring for or like the conservator the preservation or maintenance of a certain kind of work, you know that that kind of reproduction of the work itself. And in multiple forms, you know, I see this time as not a time to blunt critical faculty, but to recalibrate it in a way that, you know, writes a different script than what is possible for the work itself but also the artist and start a conversation on how the the work itself can be documented multiple ways and multiple perspectives. So expanding instead of like narrowing and foreclosing possibilities. I, my next question is kind of like forcing you all to take a stand a bit. So the question is negative reviews during a pandemic. Yeah, or nay, and why. What do you think? Yeah, well, I don't, again, reiterating what I don't see the pandemic as a reason to relax our, our critic or relax the criteria by which we watch things and understand things. You know, to give to give a personal analogy, right, I mean, because I teach as well I teach dance, I used to dance, you know, and pick exams and performances all that if you're injured before a major performance or exam, you just go and do it right. You can, let's say you sprain your knee or ankle, you can wear a knee or ankle guard, but the presence of that guard is not going to make the examiner relax. It's their criteria when they when they allocate their great. So, you know, it's the same for any like sports, you know, sports people for competitive context, pretty much similar, right, that you just, if you're sick, you just suck it up and do it and you may get an outcome that is not as great as you would if you were not sick. But unfortunately, you do it with that awareness. So I think it's, you know, the draw that parallel pandemic is not a reason or an excuse to relax the criteria, I feel. But that's it, right. It's the same thing that I've been saying about contacts and, you know, as a critic something that I want to always bring into the, I mean, bring to the forefront of the context. And obviously justifying things that you're saying. So it's not that no negative comments can be allowed at all, because I think that is not helpful to us, to artists to the scene. I think following with the metaphor that you I think it's a fact that we are all wearing the anchor guard. It's not just the artist or the data practitioners and, and I the propagation that you drew like Nabila, I think if it is honest, negativity is not to be like shied away from. Yeah, and also like, let's say like, okay, like we are all wearing the guards and then let's say you go and watch something and you really really didn't enjoy it. And then I think the my response would be to delve deeper into like why do I not enjoy is it because I had a certain expectations of performances that the online format just didn't need or is it because like it spoke to something that I just disagreed with like fundamentally like I think there are so many reasons as to why we like all this like things and as critics is supposed to responsible, it is a responsibility to interrogate your own responses. Because I think we feel strongly because there is a certain push and pull. And as critics you identify the push and pull and like kind of like contextualize it as what Justin was saying and also like expanding it to the different associations to speak to the time that we live in. Jermaine, maybe you can, if you don't mind I jump in if you want you can respond. But I was also thinking about how like right now artists in Singapore at least are a lot of them are creating work in response, especially to a grant that is being offered right like you can't really get monetary help from the government as an artist except to create work. And I feel like if the equation of the critic is removed from it right, I feel that it becomes like a dystopic thing that's being done where work is being done, but no feedback is being given. Then it seems like people are just creating to get the grant which is to me it does not make sense. So I almost feel like as a critic, I can help to normalize the equation a bit by by by making that. Yeah, making kind of like the ecosystem a bit more like normal. I don't know whether the word is normal because the word normal now is weird, but it makes it less of a weird thing and it makes it more. I almost am trying to regain what we are what we've lost with with how the arts, the art ecosystem used to run back then where it was like okay a work and then a critic and then maybe conversations can ripple out from there. But if we cut out the reviewing part, then those things other parts get cut off also. So it's kind of like a slightly different from what you are saying, but I want to try to restore normalcy by having the voice of the critic, which means that a negative review would still have a place during this time, I suppose. I mean, I guess, while it's true that people might be making work in response to like the grants that are available but I also like to think that people are not just making work like only for that purpose. I think the amount, I mean the process that artists go through. I would think as a critic I would still want to do justice to that to the amount of thought and perhaps even more thought now that everything is on this new format. And I wonder about this idea of like intertwining justice with mercy. Like it's like okay I can I can still be just an egg and I can still pronounce somebody guilty but I might be merciful and not give you like so many years in prison. So I guess they can coexist. And it's about the way that the criticism is delivered. Mercy sounds quite scary as something that we can wield but what you're saying I feel like chimes like with the whole idea of critic as care. For me it kind of gels to that. Yeah. Yeah, has everyone answered by the way, please feel free to answer again or change your answer it's totally fine. So what really is the role of the critic during the crisis. If anyone hasn't kind of responded to this if anyone wants to share your thoughts about that. There's one more note I have and sorry for taking out so much space. Yeah, it's like with all the international offerings that are being made possible. I see the role of the critic as really the mediator and the translator. This time where, you know, basically you could be watching a show that that teleports you from New York to Miami to some other city. And it's really the role of the localized critic to weave it together and to and to make sense of it or translated or recorded or archive it for a certain constituency and this can be geopolitical constituency but it also can be like cause or something that you believe in. So it's, it's important to have this person as facilitator or interlocutor. So, especially at this point in time where access has been reconfigured in such a radical way. Yeah. Respond to that. Oh, we have a question. But maybe before that. I, yeah, maybe before the question by Katrina which seems quite long and might need to wrestle with it a bit more. Can I check because I think cell thing was it was talking about subjectivity. No, someone was saying about subjectivity Jocelyn. I am also from that kind of school of reviewing where like I'm very subjective I just cannot. Because I started in the streets times I was the review of the streets times and I remember how like we were supposed to be quite objective we were supposed to be very objective sometimes I couldn't even use the word I was saying like oh this reviewer you know as if as if I'm not a self you know with with my own kind of biases which which I am but do you feel like there's a even more blurring of the boundaries between yourself as yourself and yourself as a critic. When it comes to writing, let's say a piece of criticism. Yeah, I think. Maybe not so a blurring of boundaries yes in the sense that it's not just for me as a critic or reviewer but me as everybody as an audience now is very like the boundaries are so blood right because you're at home you can be in your pajamas, you have anything or whatever and that that is. That's what everyone is dealing with so I think already we have that boundary that's broken or that's good and but I for me the subjectivity actually comes in, maybe even more strongly now or, you know, it's as a way of me. So it's how I interpret or how I kind of frame the care that I think Xiaoting and Jeremy not talking about that you know it's more like okay so we're all in this situation and everyone is doing trying to put work online. But what can you know but okay and maybe I didn't like this or you know I thought this didn't work then but then the subjectivity comes in because I'll be like okay why did I not like this. Why did I think it didn't work you know maybe maybe they actually did whatever they could already but it's just that I'm at home and I'm eating and you know I'm just not paying attention so it's my own problem right. So I think all these things we need to be aware of when we are thinking about about all the work that's going on right now. There's a better than like a boundary between like, let's say shouting to a human and shouting the critic right, like the way I see is that shouting the critic is just extra shouting. In a sense that it's a virginal myself that is a lot more reflexive there's a lot more attuned to what I'm feeling not just in terms of why here and why I see, but also the emotional responses or like the thoughts that pop into my mind as I watch something. There's different layers of the cell. Yeah. I mean, I definitely echo that as well. I feel like I need I even double down on the Nabila as a human when I'm writing criticism now, like, so maybe before that I can be like oh I'm the reviewer. But now now I feel like I need to expose myself like even more as myself, which is quite weird. So even that so called 5000 word essay which I think we'll pop the link in the chat. We were me and Corey were both kind of exposing parts of ourselves that we don't usually expose even for critics who are usually quite personal. It was all thank you. So it's almost like doubling down on on the subjectivity, you know, like what Josh is also saying, yeah. Yeah, Jermaine, what do you think, I think because you feel the subjectivity more keenly. And I think this is something that I realized just because you, you like even in a live performance you share the same time but you don't share the same space. So, like, all the more I feel like I can't situate myself like I don't know where I am in relation to the performance so well I mean as opposed to if I was sitting in the audience. And I think that then causes me to be more subjective or to highlight whatever else that I'm sensing in my face as part of the experience of the performance. You mentioned it in your review. Also, like this lack of a sort of like, you know, when you go to the theater space then you're the lights dim and you're prepared emotionally to encounter a world where it's now like immediately after this panel we leave the meeting room and I have to go back into my daily life. So it's a little bit like what Jermaine has already mentioned where this, you know, people are messaging me in the middle of this panel so and you can't like silence it or there isn't this like private protected space of the theater, which now we have realized is something that was in a way a privilege or a fiction actually. And so this sense of like restoring to normalcy is something that I'm not sure if it's possible, the restoration to normalcy. There's a deep desire to revert but you know how can we ever go back and what Yeah, like can we ever go back to a theater and feel the same way that we used to feel with everything that we have encountered since. Yeah, that would be interesting. I was kind of thinking about how I was reading about new media drama 30s because I feel like increasing me as a critic at least I am lacking like what just was saying earlier I'm lacking some of the vocabulary or knowledge about dealing with work online because because because I feel like even though it's new for us, like new media as a form has been there for a while. And it's just that for me personally, I wasn't very like fluent in it or I didn't know how to critique it so I was trying to read up to kind of level up you know as a critic almost but it's hard because ideas of like intimacy of like embeddedness of like what is life and what is not live. I don't know enough, which is also partially why I feel a bit of this kind of, I don't know enough to critique so how but of course I just try anyway with with some of my reviews. But in terms of like new kind of languages or terms have any of you get any experience about learning a new like term like not terminologies but really learning about new maybe performance qualities that you are observing from work online. I think the infrastructure of zoom and you know I'm the last person to be like adverse to adopting technology but with the pandemic it just felt like I'm held ransom by this infrastructure. And that's the thing that I cannot reconcile. You know, it's like you have to use this or else, you know, and I would have love to have the time and space to explore it on more equitable whatever that means terms. Now it's like, you know, I have to learn how to hide all non participants. I have to learn how to frame my zoom camera in a certain way in order to participate in a performance. And that for me felt like I was like I didn't have a choice and that was the most difficult thing to grapple with this lack of time to adjust to this infrastructure. Do you mean as an artist as well like both ways. Yeah, so the interesting thing that I mentioned, you know, in our pre conversation was that I wrote a piece of criticism for this dance performance called G. And now it received one of those grants to be translated into online production and we are using the zoom infrastructure. Yeah, so that's a literal example of how as a critic, you know, you're sitting with the work and maintaining the work in a certain way and growing with the work. And now I'm like a dramaturge for the media infrastructure. Yeah, so that's how the roles have shifted. And I'm still not sure if it will work. You know, and that's the exciting thing but also the worrisome thing. Yeah. Anyone want to respond to what Sahant said, or about what I said earlier. I think we've now I'm thinking about distance and power dynamic, even more Kingi, especially, you know, like in a zoom format, let's say, you know, like, they are like 36 non video participants. And I have no idea what kind of facial expressions they have I have no idea whether they're just like sleeping or angry or like smiling or laughing. And I think, and this, and when I was one of the non video participants, then I become a lot more aware of whether, like, I'm being part of the consideration of the practitioner, whether they have thought about that or like is this like lack of presence or absence, whatever you want to call it, is something that's intended or it's just, you know, like, because of circumstance. Yeah, and also distance, you know, like this whole I can't touch anyone and then like touch being such a central. I mean, there's been a lot of things trying to break it and I think like, I think, when we're like thinking about thinking about what Sahant said about the failure of it, like the impossibility of touch in the online thing you just can't. Yeah, and like those things pop up constantly in all the online performance that I've watched, even if it's like not overly like it's on my mind. Yeah, I think ironically whenever there's like a technological breakdown or like transmission break right, I feel very energized. Yeah, I have fear. While we're feeling it at the same time like, you know, so rare. Yeah, Jocelyn. It's one of those these breakdowns right it's one of those few things that remind you that you are. Oh yeah, this is together and you know because otherwise you can get really distance when you're just behind the screen. Yeah, I think one I don't have the language for it again is this whole thing about the new you know whatever form and we don't have the language but what I'm noticing is that this is this may be a personal preference thing but Yeah, I what I'm noticing is that this consideration for for the audience for what the audience is not just seeing by experiencing I think that is a very big factor now in whether the work is compelling or not. Yeah, I think one one thing that one one work that I can mention is a surveillance by Sigma Dance Company. I think this was done late May or something. And it was, I was actually very engaged with that because, you know, rather than just have a camera there with a static angle and recording whatever's going on in the room which which I think is pretty common. In the choreography of the of the work they not just did not only thought about choreography of the bodies but choreography of the screens and the camera angles and everything so in a way it's like film like dance film where they meet a lot of very obvious choices to use the camera angles to create more interest. And then we talked about this this idea of activity and all that also that is missing and I think with that you know that the camera angles really helped. There was there was one instance where it was where the camera was was like facing a mirror. So you get this like yeah and less you know yeah I don't know what the the term is but yeah there was really very fascinating to watch actually that sequence. Yeah I agree that like I think the way that they set it up. Even though it wasn't, they didn't do it live they recorded it in one take and they put it up. Even though it wasn't live. And there were there weren't any moments that directly address the audience or like try to reach out through the screen kind of thing. But there were very surprisingly tender moments like one performer like putting her hand out and then like a hand would actually appear in the other performers screen like things like that that you could associate with the experience of as opposed to it being, I guess, done more literally. But I think one thing I noticed also was that while we were watching that that video that Sigma put up. There was like a lot of buzz on the like live Facebook live stream. And people, I don't know I guess because like the the the etiquette of the theater is gone right like you're not just sitting there in the dark in your own seat like people are like putting emojis and like commenting like oh that was so cool and all that. And, and, and, and yeah I guess people feel like they can do that and to extend that to zoom I think there is a greater expectation of being involved as an audience, as opposed to previously just because the kind of ethical or the social contract I guess of the theater is is no longer there. That's quite interesting because like I mean I didn't watch surveillance, but the idea of the hand thing right, it's almost like, okay for me based on what you, you all like describe. For me it's like it depends on my mood for the day whether or not I will be willing to suspend my, my, you know, my belief a little bit to be like wow kind of magic, or be like like, like, you know, it reminds me of how impossible this whole thing is you know, it almost depends on how you that they think, but okay I didn't watch it so maybe I shouldn't say so much. So we are actually now into our Q&A section of this panel. So I will address Katrina's question. So just to maybe contextualize Katrina Santiago she was one of our panelists for last week's panel on intimacy online. So the question is, how do we navigate the whole tendency where people who mount online productions feel like there's enough reason to celebrate their work. And she has a specific example where the Virgin Latfest in Manila, I feel like there are some like critical responses of, I suppose like negative responses to it and the artists were not forthcoming about this like negative kind of criticisms. So she says, how do we deal with this kind of push and pull between, hooray you did a work given this terrible times and okay wait was that even a good work at all. Yeah, what do we think, panelists. It's difficult to comment because it's such a specific context but that question really made me think like even before the pandemic happened. There were such conversations ongoing about the right of a critic to point out certain flaws within a worthy experiment. You know, and we have that reincantation of like Gopal Coons, you know it's like worthy success or worthy failure. I can't remember that exact wording but basically you know it's like do you experiment to fail or do you experiment to succeed. And what do you do with experiments that fail. Yeah, it's it's basically sustaining that conversation into an elevating the stakes of it within this crisis. But that conversation has already been ongoing. And I think it also exposes a certain kind of distrust between the community and the critic. If that phenomenon does happen. So it actually reviews that the infrastructure of the arts ecology, perhaps requires certain reconfiguration and balance of power in a way, if that conversation is surfacing. And I'm just transposing it to a Singaporean context also. So I might be doing the question solve injustice by transposing. Yeah, I mean it's a very specific example that Katrina is bringing it up. But yeah I do agree with the hand like it does remind me of things that were already happening. And one of one of the things that I've been uncomfortable with in regard to like the conversation that have been happening previously right has always been like, Oh, how can this critic say something when they've never done their own work. Like, Oh, or they should try and do it themselves right. And often this is a reviewer who who maybe is not an artist. But even then I feel like it's a very weird kind of tech to take to take because anyone can critique a work like like you know I'm always telling like anyone in the audience technically has has a right to opinion about the work and sharing their opinion, especially now when anyone can can publish a review on Instagram or Facebook. Of course, of course there are differences in quality or whatever. But yeah I feel like what Katrina is kind of positive thing is almost like that bubble that I was talking about that that dystopian bubble know like everything is great like yeah we've created a work which yes like on some level you want to make people feel happy that we are creating work even during the pandemic. But then the happiness is also not realistic right I mean we are creating a listen it's like the good place right like it's not gonna. How long can that sustain that bubble. That's my take. But yeah does anyone want to respond to that. At the risk of sounding repetitive. I think it's it's what I've been saying before about the contextualization and trying to really recognize that okay, I mean I think that, you know, in terms of, you know, do we do we just shout away at everything or do we be critical do we like, you know, note the things that didn't work well. But but also say why you why you why you had that impression, you know, and it may well be just my impression and you know because of whatever whatever reasons that I know to do with my environment at the time I didn't think it was it was well. So if you are able to justify that in your in a review I think that that you know is you've done your as a reviewer you've done your your your partner. Yeah, and you know what however, the community or the artist takes it then you don't have control over that. Yeah, but I mean definitely agree with LaVina that you know it's the same with like food right I mean does it mean that you must be a chef in order to give your opinion about food no right everyone has opinion about food. Yeah. It's a bit like like accountability culture right like like be accountable for what you put out also you know. Yeah, oh someone reminded us about Ko Pao Koon saying choose a valuable failure not a mediocre success. Yeah, does anyone to respond to that. I mean not not Ko Pao Koon saying but like, yeah, I think I lost my train of thought so that's go on while while you're. Oh, okay, actually I also lost my train of thought but now I remember thanks Ling for reminding me, but I think like to me like shutting down the critics voice is almost like a silent thing. Also, which, which I would never want to encourage in Singapore at least like within the arts, if not larger, you know, like larger circles. And in terms of within the arts at least like if you say that one person's voice is not like should be shut down right then that's like dangerous because then when does it end like who else do you want to silence I suppose it's this. And I know that with with Katrina and like with kind of the manila context and do 30 and all that silencing is not just a silencing within the arts but it kind of like echoes or has a ripple effect throughout kind of their country I suppose. So there's a question from Bernice. Could you speak a little bit more about using third person and your relationship to an active third objective voice and critical writing. This question comes from my own reflections taught me to use passive voice and third person and then I took a massive shift when I push to use I an active voice in dance writing classes. Roslyn you are using to be smiling. Do you know what is done. Oh, no, I mean I was smiling because I'm like I never use third person in my in my reviews. I can't remember a time ever using third person after after probably after after like a level because I mean with my with my background in in get this are these. Almost every essay is in first person because you it doesn't make sense to talk about to talk about things using this reviewer. You know using we I know some scientific papers use me. But you know is it makes no sense it helps you so much to be able to engage with the thing you're talking about when you come from an eye perspective. And I think that's why the humanities. Yeah, I don't want to go into the citations and stuff but that's why you know MLA users, which is a citation format it uses of those names because it's like you are having a conversation with the author with with the other people in the room. It's really like a conversation and that's what I feel any writing kind of is right so. I mean, even more so when in the context of us writing when what we really want to have is a conversation with the with the artists with the audiences and so on. Yeah, so when I teach when I teach in my students at a kind of, I mean, 18 year old and above level, I also push everybody to use I yeah. I think the younger people are a bit more used to it probably because of like, maybe not blocks but you know like in all the personal social media stuff that I comes first lah almost. So how did you want to add to that. I also think that was advocate wonder also there's a space for the third person critic to exist or so. Because there also is the basically we trace the lineage of where this auto criticism comes from it's basically from the liberal or neoliberal Academy. And this like, you know, it's like foregrounding of the first person and and that's, that's a tendency that should be celebrated in its own way but at the same time we should also be critical to use the frame of this panel. Yeah, and perhaps there's also this this space for a third person form of criticism that should be, you know, it should, it should not be one or the other but it should work in tandem in a way so that as a possibility of moving oneself from the object of study, occasionally, before reflexive kind of analysis. Yeah, so that's just my point. That's an interesting provocation maybe I should try it on arts equator. Yeah, but but I suppose like maybe maybe it could be interesting to review as like reviewing as a group or review as a community. Maybe I don't know. It could be interesting. I mean, definitely when when I was first starting out at the streets times and I was saying like this review and all, I felt like I had to put on like a mantle of authority that I didn't have I mean I was very young when I started, but but this reviewer gave me this cloak of like as if I had the authority, you know, but and then when I had to shift to I it was a bit weird, because I was I felt I was very exposed. And people would people would know that I didn't know anything or, you know, that kind of that kind of insecurity would come out. But I think that's an interesting provocation from the hand which I never thought about before. Yeah, has anyone used like the reviewer or one one also can. Yeah, I mean, I wrote in the streets times for a long time. And I think, I think when I started I was very like wary about it just because Sunday had so much authority but I obviously was very young when I started. And I wanted to use I just because like it, I was like way more. I was way less significant than like whatever this big machinery is. But I think the one of the experiences that I started using I happened because the performance was a very participative performance. There was no way I could write about it from an objective point of view because I was standing there among the performers I was like getting involved in dancing and everything. And that was one kind of turning point that happened for me. So I will kind of struggled between the two for a long time just because of the platform that I was writing for. I keep forgetting my channel thought because there's so many like ways to talk about talk about this. But maybe I'll go to like one of my questions if if anyone in the audience wants to add your questions please do is maybe like for the ones who have not talked about it that much like do you think there's a new etiquette that critics have to follow now like do you find yourself like oh if I listen to this game maybe radio there's a few more audio plays that are coming out not everything is on zoom right do you feel like you need to for example like cannot pause you know I must listen to it all in one go or I must listen like in the dark and like be 100% focus you know have you had to like deal with these things within yourselves. I think yes I will always try to listen it in one go like you know like enter a headspace but then at the same time I will take note of when I really just want to throw in my phone. Or like my laptop you know like little notes like that like and also then after that after the whole thing then I'll okay why do I feel so like distracted or anything like that. But then also I think yeah there was something like something that I watched and I just couldn't like I just felt myself getting like angry for no reason. I think that also got to do with like first take in general. So I think also like keeping in mind what kind of frame in frame of mind I mean it's not like a past where you can just watch one show per evening. I think now you can watch like three shows but you think if you want to and also like being aware of how what your limit is. I think that's something that didn't struck me before. Yeah. Yeah zoom fatigue is real. Yeah. Anyone want to add anything to that. My connection is a little bit unstable but I'll make this quick and if I drop out just let me know. I think unless explicitly stated and this also the artist in me speaking it's like if the instructions were explicit in in terms of like when they frame the performance they say that you should listen to this from the beginning to the end without stopping and turn off all your lights. You know then unless an explicit instruction like that is given. I don't think there is any ground rules or etiquette for like disrupting or for like taking it to the toilet or like listening to it on on a bus ride or stopping it and never continuing it or never picking up again. I think it's all fair game and we shouldn't discount like perhaps that's also the intention of the artist in translating it to a medium like that it doesn't require this kind of fidelity and to give it this kind of fidelity is actually misreading the gesture of the artist. Overreading maybe sometimes. So okay so maybe it's just me who feels like I said I always feel like I need to switch off my lights and then after that it gets too dark because I'm like oh no I need to I can't see what I'm eating even you know it doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense if there are people around you you can be asking everyone in your house to like you know get quiet while you focus 100% on a show. So definitely as a critic I feel like I'm a bit more gentler on myself and people around me as well just yeah different ways of doing it I suppose. Does anyone want to share maybe besides surveillance what was some interesting like online shows that you've watched that that maybe have been like very different from other ways that responses have that you've seen how other people have responded. Yes, go ahead. Waiting for other people to answer. So the thing that came coming back to mind when preparing for this panel is Simon McBurney's and complicity is the encounter. You know, when we talk about like infrastructural kind of instructions where he specifically says you have to experience it with headphones because of the binaural kind of experience. And I was also grappling with the discrepancy between encountering the encounter online and watching it live in the theater where I was so enamored by the technology and the performance and his charisma that watching it online again with a collective which is a little group that we formed called Zoom Zoom Room where we watched performances online. Yeah, then it really struck me like what would a post colonial reading of this production sound like you know and it's so disturbing in a way that it reproduces this heart of darkness narrative, and I was never able to have that critical distance when I was experiencing it in the theater. So it was only through the revisitation and the fact that it was made available online and also watching it collectively without being so precious about the experience that I'm able to do a rewriting of that memory. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it happened to me too, so we had we had almost the exact same experience. I think the distance has been even more like amplified kind of like because of, because like when when the first National Theater live productions were coming out right at first people were so excited. And I started becoming quite uncomfortable with the fact that we were all consuming productions from this so called center of culture in the world, you know, and I was like, Why must you watch? Why do we have to watch this just because it exists and because they are so ahead in their technology or they had so much resources, you know, like, like, and I, and I felt very resistant to that because of because of that and it's only because of the distance that gives you that that you know because when I'm there, of course I'm like, Oh my God, wow, you know. Yeah, so the distance comes with more criticality, which Yeah. That's a question. Can the ruptures brought on by the pandemic be seen as an opportunity for criticism to leave the echo chamber. If it does indeed exist. It's an interesting question. Firstly, does the echo chamber for criticism exist? I think, Jermaine, I feel like you might you might be thinking about this, even before the pandemic. I don't know. I guess the maybe maybe because of like the kind of criticism I write like it's a very small field and it's a very small bunch of people. And I think that I guess the accessibility of work online has allowed for I guess more I mean a bigger audience but maybe also people are just being exposed to more and being able to form opinions on a wider variety of things so I certainly hope that there is a kind of widening of the field that is taking place. But also, I am just thinking also about the performance that I mentioned earlier by Merlin where she's she's almost kind of inviting subjectivity right like she I'm going to quote from a piece of text that she performed that she basically performing this from her bedroom to a camera to more groups of 10 to 12 people on zoom. And in one of the sections, she says the camera has become my audience, but it is probably the most neutral lens there is. But then I realized that this neutrality is boring and it kills the tension and then she then goes goes on to invite whoever is watching to watch her with all assumptions or biasness or prejudice and and I said and I think that there is a. Yeah, I guess there's a kind of breaking down of what perhaps that that cloak that you mentioned Nabila that that that's kind of like coming down. But also that there is a wider spectrum of people with a wider spectrum of assumptions and biases that have access to work like this now. I don't know if you can see the question. Oh, I think only I can see it but yeah, so there's a question that says there's been a sense of care and sensitivity to the impact of the pandemic on artists and the process of making art in this new climate. What is the critics responsibility to the audience slash spectator. We haven't quite talked about this but what is our responsibility towards our towards the audience. Honestly, honestly. Like, not just a very superficial honesty by very deep and interrogated honesty. I think that the same way there is a sense of care and sensitivity or to the impact of the pandemic on others. And sensitivity also includes like really thinking about how you receive the artwork. And I think like the responsibility to the audience or like other spectators will be how do you translate this, what you have received into something else. Yeah, I'm actually thinking about something that Katrina brought up just now you know like, because I think the relationship between like artists and critics. I think it's a durational one it's not just a one off. It's not just about one piece of criticism around one artwork. I think the more trust you build over the years or like over the multiple iterations that you continue conversations with, then maybe like there is more room for like the brutality that we are we are we keep talking about during this session. Because I'm making friends right the longer your friends is someone sometimes it's easier to hear that stuff on them. Yeah, yeah. For sure, for sure if you're a beginning beginner reviewer coming out right the first time you write review if it's negative. It's very hard to come back from that I feel I've seen some examples. Yeah. So you need to build up like a bank of goodwill or people have this know where you're coming from or your intentions at least at the very least sorry. No, just answering that question, which, yeah, about responsibility to the audience and spectators, especially on the in terms of in times of the pandemic when there's the onslaught of various content from all over the world. You know that there's this greater responsibility for, you know, the critic to in a way speak truth or represent a certain account of truth, so that we can help be not be discerning on behalf of but be discerning for so that the audience and the spectator can make certain decisions based on our account of a production or show. So in that sense, it falls back into the beginning where instead of having like a blunt thing of critical faculties that should be a heightening because the responsibility of the critic becomes even it comes into sharper focus at this point in time. So many productions being made available all across the world. Jocelyn, your thoughts. Yeah, actually very similar to what something and certain have already said, I think, especially when, you know, not only is there an explosion of things online but also that the sometimes they stay online for for longer for a certain period of time so there is a chance that that people can actually people may actually read something that you wrote and then we'll go and watch the thing for themselves. So I think it is about maintaining this or building this this relationship like I said it is about being honest from your point of view you know this is this was my experience. And it could be because XYZ then okay you go and watch the thing for yourself and you know but but that my responsibility is to tell you my my honest experience and you know kind of what I got from from it, given my my perspective you know I of course someone else may come from a very different perspective and that's that's valid too. So it's to keep this going really to keep this this open conversation going. And we need that we need the honesty and that put together for that, because otherwise it becomes again going back to what Katrina, Katrina said that it's justice who read everyone's just who read it right. Yeah. I feel like, I feel like even like what I was saying about kind of heightening right, I feel even deeply for the role of the critic as an activist, but for like for the arts in general and and for championing like the arts during this time especially when I'm writing a piece of like any kind of writing so maybe not even not just reviews but when I'm writing an editorial piece. But I feel I definitely feel the need that I want to speak on behalf of not maybe not on behalf but for the artist if I can if I have a platform to do it. I don't think it means that I'm I don't write for the audience or the spectator, but at this point of time I feel more responsibility towards the artist but this is personally for me. Yeah, it may not be the same for for the rest of your critics, and also I wanted to also highlight that like I mean we are five people from the critics reading group but there are also other people who are in the reading group as well. I think for the last two years or so we've been talking about reviewing and criticism. And we've been trying to like introduce like criticality into the critics work, but the conversations that we've been having like even from 2018 and now I like so vastly different that I feel like there's no one way to define the role of the critic. Yeah, I don't know whether you will agree but but I feel like it's it's kind of like evolving and we are always constantly having to move like as fast as the artist or maybe faster sometimes. It's not if not just catching up because yeah I don't know I don't know whether that makes sense but but definitely like the idea of it being a kind of like a roving roving act or roving practice. I guess it makes it exciting. So we, well we are at nine o'clock so I will kind of like draw this to a close. Thank you so much to the speakers for sharing so honestly about how you're feeling about some of the grappling that we've had to do during this time and even maybe before the pandemic, you know some of these thoughts of yours may have been things that you've been thinking about, you know, for the past few years. And definitely we have critics like you know like Corita and all who've always been talking about like vulnerability and embeddedness of the critic and also it's not like just a pandemic kind of thing as well. It's something that's part of like the conversations that we've been having. Yeah, so thank you to the panelists, we have come to the end of the panel. So if you want to you can switch off your videos. For the rest of the audience members, I mean just some closing remarks. This does mark the end of burning questions the series. We do thank you so much if you've joined us for the other panels as well. It's a totally new thing that we at Art Secret have been trying out. And if you want to join any of our reviewing courses, you might be interested, please do apply for for the workshops or the courses that we're doing that's on the slide right now. The other thing is that for this particular panel today, we are collecting some feedback, and we request that if you can please scan that QR code or there's a link in our chat which we're collecting some of your responses about today's panel in particular so it's only for today's panel. And we hope we can do that. If you can, we'd love if you can visit our website as well as artsycreator.com we always have new content every week if you're new to us please do check us out. We are also on Spotify we have a reviewing podcast if anyone wants to check us out. We can just search as a creator. But otherwise, thank you so much for tonight. Thank you so much for joining us and yeah we hope you have a pleasant rest of the day wherever you're watching us from. Thank you very much and good night.