The high/low divide rots dance criticism

Hi, Regina,

In defense of Macaulay and me, a couple of thoughts: I do think there's a difference between Croce's not going at all (though if it were the time and I had the time, I would defend that action, given her reasons) and Macaulay not watching the bulk of these two dance competition shows. Don't TV critics, even, review a show after having watched only the pilot and a few shows in? I don't think a critic is obliged to watch every show to weigh in on the gist of it. Of course there are going to be exceptions to the general rule of terrible choreography that makes even good dancers dreadful, but that's not his or my point. And haven't you walked into a gallery, given a good look at a few paintings/installations/videos and then scanned the rest? I mean, do you study every single inch of canvass to give it the benefit of the doubt? I think Macaulay is very careful, in all of his reviews, to report exactly how much he has seen and not seen. Probably other critics wouldn't even mention it if they hadn't seen every single show.

As for the whole high/low distinction, I agree that dance critics--or rather, ballet critics--can be snobs. On the other hand, we've reached a point in the culture where to condemn a popular and populist art is suspect from the get-go. I think it's refreshing, not tiresome, that he would dare do it in the Times. Also, how often do art critics even bother with this kind of commercial work: say, Thomas Kinkade? Let me know what you think when they do. Sure, Dave Hickey has done Rockwell, but that's so far after the fact, it hardly counts.

Finally, this video above: I agree he's a fine dancer--particularly his hips and footwork--but the choreography and the way it works with its music doesn't allow him to be musical. Every one of his phrases ends with the same sort of ta-da, and the feel of the music runs exactly counter to the spirit of the dancing. It's a ludicrous piece, and that's the problem with So You Think You Can Dance?--the show reduces even the best dancers to dreck.

~Apollinaire

You're so right about this. Dance critics tend to be reactionary, because there is so little support for what they do. They turn inward, rejecting the culture that rejects them. If a show like So You Think You Can Dance has merit, what is their sacrifice about? I'm hoping there are stipends for dance critics in the future, like regular jobs, with better magazines to print what they produce, or really good websites supported as nonprofits.

The difference, and it's a large one, between Astaire and Schwimmer: The former was his own choreographer, and the latter needs one. But as a dancer, Schwimmer has all the qualities that Macauley denies those on "So You Think You Can Dance" - musicality, phrasing, intimacy and actual sensuousness. You think anyone who dissents from Macauley is just jealous, including yourself? There's a real need for diversity of voices in your field. The Croce connection is a fact. She reviewed a performance she hadn't seen, and Macauley summed up many performances he hadn't seen. Yr pt, aside from being a snob, is?

Ha! Benji Schwimmer a "genuine heir to Astaire." That is rich. While you might have a few valid points in this rather specious post (the Macauley-Croce connection is very thin), that statement alone invalidates your entire argument.

If you can actually watch Schwimmer and even think 'Astaire' you have no business being either a dance critic or a critic of the "only full-time dance critic employed at a newspaper in the US." Wordy, BTW.

The real story here is that everyone (myself included) likes to take the occasional shot at Macauley. That's just pure professional jealousy.

But I know how it is. When you can't come up with an original idea you gotta do something. In other words,when you're writing a blog you have to keep spitting out snark. Good luck with all that.