Prejudiced

who did go to drama school. Fans have tweeted their support for Cheryl Cole, and Lily Allen won the WhatsOnStage Award for the best performer in a female identifying role last year; there have also been brilliant reviews for the play, with it being rated four out of five stars from all major newspapers in the UK. This seems to be a play where stunt casting works; other instances of this happening, though, have not worked out so well.

Joe Sugg’s entrance into Waitress the Musical after being on Strictly Come Dancing in 2018 caused controversy. Going into the role of Ogie, a supporting character with a couple of solo songs, the role is a comedic one, but a good singing voice is also required. I saw the show with Joe in it; whilst he was very funny, and surprisingly good at acting, his voice was just not up to scratch.

Moments of being slightly flat were arguably counteracted by how good his acting was, though. He got the most laughs from the audience as the comedic stock character in the musical, bringing some needed comedic relief to the upsetting theme of domestic abuse the musical is centred around. But this type of stunt casting is often criticised; instead of hiring someone who has trained in drama school for years, the casting team is often accused of choosing celebrities because they will sell tickets for the show and create good publicity. This is what happened with Joe; prior to Strictly, he had no acting or singing experience.

So, although it may work in some scenarios, I think casting directors need to ask themselves this question: despite the fact stunt casting may sell tickets, do you want your show to become a laughing stock if the celebrity you employ just isn’t up to the job?

or just misunderstood: pretentiousness in action

Emily Sara Rizzo discusses if pretentiousness is overrated

THE word ‘pretentious’ seems to shrink from common conversation, hiding rather in the dark corners of art exhibitions, film festivals, poetry gatherings and the like. But why does this elusive term have so much weight in the arts, when ‘snobby’ and ‘arrogant’ are more easily used in other contexts? This may just be because we don’t like to admit we’re out of our depth when it comes to the arts or, more generally, anything that is seen as universally accessible and understandable. If you’re a budding film enthusiast and you’ve just stumbled across the chaos and ambiguity of the French New Wave, after hearing all the praise it’s received in the world of cinema, you may be left a little flat after tentatively approaching these films. Whether they leave you disappointed in yourself or in the art form, you’ll probably be left wondering why everyone else was able to see something special, while you were untouched by whatever magic was supposed to seep through the screen. And as the feeling of exclusion and belittlement sets in, you scramble to find a reason to defend your pride and artistic taste. The stamp of pretentiousness is thus bestowed. Can we justify this premature opinion? We’re faced with a puzzle and two options are before us; we can try to infiltrate the thick barrier that separates us from understanding or we can spare ourselves the effort by deciding it’s not worth our time. By calling something pretentious we refuse to try and see from another person’s point of view because it’s just not what we’re used to. Anything can be seen as pretentious due to its simple way of targeting a niche audience; after all, pretentiousness is just assuming that you’re interacting with people who are on the same level of meaning as you. Then again, maybe the word means something entirely different. There is no shortage of examples that show how some people or movements intentionally exclude certain audiences, deeming them unworthy of their own high quality of living.

This form of pretentiousness is just an excuse for cultural snubbing and is rightly held in disdain for its prejudices and unwarranted bias. So, before you next pass something off as pretentious, take a moment to think about what has induced that reaction, because misunderstanding something’s value does a disservice to both it and yourself. But don’t be afraid to call out blinkered pretentiousness when you see it.

Are art galleries invasive and ugly?

Agata Koralewska, International Editor, explores the often out-of-place architecture of art galleries

THE recent debate concerning the space that art galleries occupy in public has been revived by the ruling of the Supreme Court that Tate Modern art gallery is affecting the privacy of the nearby luxury flats. Some of the residents complained how the passing tourists, heading to the gallery, photograph everything around the museum and peek into the interiors of the households. In addition to that, some locals comment on ‘visual intrusion’ as the building’s unique architecture blocks any other views from the windows. Art galleries tend to be buildings that often don’t match the infrastructure surrounding them; a good example of that can be the Tate St Ives gallery in Cornwall.

Tate St Ives is a plain, round building, looking very solid and almost out of place compared to the neighbouring houses. The residents of the seaside town in Cornwall have complained about its distinctiveness from its surroundings. As the gallery is close to the beach, it is strange to look at the swimmers, surfers and people walking their dogs with the art gallery in the background. However, it is said to be a crucial influence in promotion of Cornish art and culture. It also brings in a lot of tourists that fuel the local economy. Many young people leave the town as the job market is small and the wages poor, so that working in an industry connected to tourism could become a way of improving the economy. The gallery brings in people from the outside, therefore there are more opportunities for working in hospitality.

The question of how artistic sites impact the local communities is more and more relevant in modern society.

Contemporary art can surprise and scare