That's exactly what I mean, though; you didn't like Sweeney Todd and The Light in the Piazza, because they're just not the kind of thing you like. They weren't enjoyable to you. But does that mean that they're in that category of "bad theater" -- the one that's detrimental to the art, and all that (even though I know it's obviously a flexible term)? I'm just saying I think it's important to be able to recognize that even if you don't *like* something, that doesn't mean it's bad, as in that there are huge things wrong with it, and vice versa.
You didn't like Sweeney; but if you break it down, can you recognize that things like the acting and the direction were good? That the show is well-written, even if you didn't enjoy seeing it? I loved Chitty, but I recognized that it had a lot of problems, and for many intents and purposes -- though not all -- it was just bad. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy seeing it.
ETA -- yes, "universally" wasn't the right word to use, since surely there'll be one person out there who likes everything, even if it's a total wreck, in all senses of the word. But I think you can figure out what I meant, without the semantic tie-ups. There's stuff that even the untrained eye can recognize as bad, in almost all cases.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Updated On: 5/24/06 at 12:30 PM