COMMENTS
Back to Main Discussion
re: Macaulay Watch: The chief Times dance critic is getting better (REVISED Monday)
Oof, Gia Kourlas. With the economy, the thousands of dancers in this town, with so many struggling young artists as well as struggling "emerging artists" who have been in this game for years, now mentors... the dearth of visibility for artists and criticism alike, the precious word allotment on a NYTimes page, the politics... how is there room for a paragraph like this:
"Ms. Nugent presents the final dance, 'Little,' a solo marred by self-indulgence. Wearing an unflattering tank dress and lighted by a spotlight, she keeps her distance from the audience at first, her head thrown back in grief or defiance. The movement sensibility is thick and slow, as she uses her rising arms to propel her body forward along a diagonal line. With manically fluttering fingers, she makes her way to the center of the stage, twirling like a ballerina in a jewelry box. The solo is both too full of ideas and lacking in content: In the end it reveals little."
Does anyone recall this review? Regardless of what your aesthetic may be, it's hard to see how writing like this serves this community, the artists, dancegoers (and especially new dancegoers!).
Apollinaire responds: hmmmm... I think the description of the dance is lovely: concise and evocative. But I'm not clear from the description how the dance is self-indulgent, what the ideas are that it is too full of, and, on the other hand, how it is empty. The description makes it seem full of bathos: mawkish. Which is to say, full of the same old ideas. If Kourlas could align her beginning and end with her middle, we'd have a fine review. But that's a common problem--I, for one, face it all the time. How to get the description to fit one's overall sense of the work. How to say more in one's conclusion than one has said already--not LESS. It just begs the question to say a work is "lacking in ideas." It's being banal about banality. Tut-tut.
About "serving the community"--I think the main body a critic needs to serve is the readers--not the dancers or the choreographers or other critics or even merely her editors. If the readers aren't getting insight into the work and, more broadly, into dance, then there's a problem.
posted by devika |
03/27/08, 10:55 AM | permalink
the St. Petersburg Ballet is now performing in Delaware and I'm considering seeing a performance. Would love to know what the reviews were and did you get to see them?
thank you.
Freya Koss, a ballet lover
Apollinaire responds: I didn't get to see them. The critics found "Giselle" slightly ridiculous and "Carmen" abominable. Oh, well!
Here are links to "Giselle" reviews:
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=672546&category=ARTS&newsdate=3/16/2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403866.html
Here is a "Carmen" review: http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-1/1205732111247650.xml&coll=1
posted by Freya Koss |
03/21/08, 9:34 AM | permalink
Just be glad they didn't hire me. I only love the Ballets Russes, and nobody measures up to Fokine, Massine, Nijinska, et al.
posted by S, Z, |
03/16/08, 8:12 PM | permalink
RIGHT ON! Many of us NYC balletomanes have been complaining to each other & in writing to the NY Times about the supreme ego of Macaulay, who has been downright nasty in his reviews. I'd love to send you copies of my never-published letters! SO GLAD to read you.
K.L. Tasens
posted by K.L. Tasens |
03/14/08, 3:26 PM | permalink
wow. I'm catching up late as usual but thanks for the link to PT's "why" statement.
I've been thinking recently that the answer to the question "why" is a "what" - an image, or an action -- and that the big existential "why" as an individual is embedded in early childhood images makes much sense to me. Go, PT.
I was also struck by his ad page for this season: woman with golden halo center, horned man to the right, devil/jokester to the right. He doth speak plainly indeed.
Apollinaire responds: Thanks for writing, Clare.
posted by clare byrne |
03/10/08, 4:47 PM | permalink
I saw this performance in Newark yesterday and it was great! The Hall is beautiful, with fine acoustics. The dancers and a full orchestra were wonderful! They should have been scheduled for more than one performance!
posted by Milton Fox |
03/03/08, 3:10 PM | permalink
Cal Berkeley at the end of March:
http://www.calperfs.berkeley.edu/presents/season/2007/dance/tpb.php
I very much enjoyed their performances the last time they were in Berkeley.
Apollinaire responds: Thank you for this, Phil. A different ballet--but one that really wowed people here in 2006: Natalia Makarova's staging of "Swan Lake."
posted by phil s |
03/01/08, 11:38 PM | permalink
one of my biggest issues with modern dance, and most other forms of art, is that the audience is comprised mainly of... Artists. How unfortunate that we are not attempting to reach out to a larger base, not attempting to change lives or feelings with our work! And I don't think this must be done at the expense of meaning, or of aesthetics. Indeed, to suggest such an idea seems insulting to me- that appealing to more people means to "dumb down" your art. People in general are smarter than many choreographers and directors give them credit for- and if they aren't, they certainly at least have the capacity to FEEL. So make art that elicits thoughts, or feelings, or (dare i say it?) BOTH, in an audience of non-artists. If you're making dance for the audience of dancers, it's almost entirely a pointless enterprise. Get a construction worker, an IT guy, a housekeeper to come and enjoy your work. Then i'll be impressed.
posted by arts enthusiast |
02/22/08, 9:56 PM | permalink
Any suggestions on where I can purchase 2 or more DVD's showing young african american girl dancers? it's a gift for my 4 year old niece. Any suggestions to a website would be great! Thanks
GS
posted by gurlsouth |
02/05/08, 11:57 PM | permalink
i just want to comment on clive barnes review of tango fire at the joyce theater this month..dec..surprised to find that he was appalled by this company...funny, but the whold audience of joyce regulars stood uo and applauded for 10 minutes...its nice to be welcoming to argentinas tango which left all of us smiling and feeling realy good..sorry we dont agree.
posted by bobbie gitter |
12/28/07, 1:33 PM | permalink
I'm an (aspiring...sort of) dance writer and I just thought I'd add that I love this conversation!
As you may have read on The Winger (http://thewinger.com/words/2007/senior-thesis-and-other-thoughts) I'm doing a big project on dance criticism for school and these inside anecdotes about reviewing dance are fun to hear. Thanks for blogging :)
Apollinaire responds: I'm so glad you're enjoying it, Taylor. We're all probably admitting more than we ought. (As one critic friend wrote to say, "But I *need* my friends!") Your school project sounds great.
posted by Taylor |
12/13/07, 12:28 AM | permalink
Dear Apollinaire,
Love your last words on Performa. One thing I love about the dance world is its grace. It is an example for us all. It extends from the dancers to us folks in the audience. After that, it's hard to turn back. You might want to know what performance I just came from--it was Dance Conversations @ The Flea.
As a critic I always want to follow suit. And when that fails is when I most relate to your blog title.
Hopefully you will see my Performa reviews in the next Performance Art Journal. In the upcoming Journal, I wrote about "Metropolis" and its similar issues.
Dear Lori, I look forward to your reviews. Where does one find Performance Art Journal? At St. Mark's Books? (I've read it, but now I can't remember where or how.) What is "Metropolis"? Pardon my cluelessness. ~Apollinaire
posted by Lori Ortiz |
12/05/07, 8:49 AM | permalink
Oh come on, they HAVE to show "Grazioso" again! I loved it and I am rarely loving new ballets these days! That's not fair if they don't -- it's a tease!
Apollinaire responds: Hi, Tonya! (Readers: check out her great review of the whole gala program here: http://www.tonyaplank.com/tonyaplank/swan_lake_samba_girl/?p=502 .) I'm sure the ballet will return, just not right away. I guess they wait to see how it turns out, and it hasn't even been made when they're figuring out the winter schedule.
posted by tonya |
11/21/07, 2:46 PM | permalink
Hello All,
I have completely fallen into this blog by chance ...however, I am so thrilled to find this discussion happening. I am on the East Coast...in midcoast Maine, no dance here to speak of, except the Salsa class I am happily attending.
I grew up studying ballet, my dance teacher had been with the Royal Ballet in London, but stage fright cured her of performing. My education in dance had stressed performance/dramaturgy as part and parcel of dance as an expression...And to me it was always exciting feeling the relationship between performers and audience. A real spark of communication and a sense of aliveness in the dance and in the reception of the dance.
Then, I moved to NYC, by way of Paris where I studied with Marcel Marceau (speaking of silent drama), got more involved in modern dance and began taking stock of all the many forms of dance happening in the "dance capital" of the world...and imagine my dismay when I realized it was not "cool" to communicate to the audience - my "inner working" was meant to be enough and sporting the neutral face was au courant.
Even Bessie Schonberg reprimanded me in a choreography workshop for tapping into my mime training :"Mime and dance are two separate art forms and shouldn't be pursued together" or words close to that effect.
Correct me if I've not got this right, but I do believe it was George Balanchine who set us all down this merry road of neutrality and the 60/70s New Age Dance movement which was about experimentation and chance and was born of a rebellion against Modernity. I am quite sure that at the time, it was all a very exciting movement - rising up against traditional storytelling in any form (yes, this happened in other art forms - not just dance).
My joy in finding your conversation this morning is relief at knowing the conversation is swinging back to some kind of middle ground - experimentation and communication surely are our oldest human instincts. You take one away at the expense of the other.
I salute you all for trying to sort through these questions. I've turned to photography, where yes, I get a lot more feedback from colleagues and there is lots of competition, but that somehow also translates into camaraderie, which dance is sorely lacking.
Last night in salsa I noted how relieved I was to find myself dancing AND connecting - and the gestures are a language.
Apollinaire responds:Thank you for writing, Antonia. And I'm happy to hear that the discussion has been a balm.
I DO think there are different ways of communicating and the storytelling of mime is definitely one of them. (I LOVE it, by the way--love seeing ballet companies that still have that skill.)
I should say, though, that dramaturgy isn't just for explicitly dramatic dance. The work of Emio Greco that I mention in the post above [?] has no story--and the faces are the usual dance face. It's more to help shape the piece, whatever kind and shape it has.
posted by Antonia Small |
11/21/07, 9:45 AM | permalink
Your comment about overpartnering resonates, as does your opinion that romance is overworked. This is why I stay away from ballet.
posted by |
11/21/07, 8:59 AM | permalink
Even if one wants to really challenge the audience, that still necessitates having an audience and communicating with the audience. And communicating with the audience, it should be needless to say, does not automatically necessitate creating work that merely tries to please the audience. Moreover, looking at it like a business does not make it dirty. Business just means that there is an exchange, an exchange of time, attention and the price of admission for the experience of being in communication with the artist via his creative work. If more artists required of their work that it be of value to others, that it actually be a worthwhile experience, then fewer artists would be complaining about the "business." I don't say that financial profit and worthy art strictly correlate, but they do correlate to some degree!
posted by Christopher Pelham |
11/20/07, 6:47 PM | permalink
Hi everyone, I'm a little embarrassed that I started this whole tirade through a flippant ending to a comment that I made. The discussion, though, has been fascinating.
Apollinaire, you totally hit the mark with your statement, "You help explain why Jolene might have hesitated to dismiss the seemingly experimental works of Elo and Millepied: she doesn't want to discourage the experimental impulse, as art depends on it to stay alive. On the other hand, she wants the real turtle soup, not the mock."
My instinct when watching the two pieces was complete confusion as to what the choreographers were trying to say. My gut reaction also knew that these pieces were not the genuine thing. When I watched Wheeldon's "Continuum" with SF Ballet, I could see how Wheeldon was experimenting and working through the piece, but it was genuine and cohesive. It kept me engaged and thinking about the piece, and it made sense, in addition to convincing me that I didn't hate all contemporary ballets!
I like the literature metaphor as well. In English class, we all learn that we need a thesis and details to support this thesis. This makes for good communication, and in my mind, dance is a form of expression and communication.
Perhaps some choreographers think that catering to an audience is selling out to appease the masses, at the expense of their high art. But you need audiences to keep coming back because ultimately, like it or not, it is a business. And I like to think that today's dance audiences are smart, educated, well-read, and savvy - we enjoy being engaged, being challenged, being surprised, having fun, and able to understand metaphors, historical significance, and relevance to today's society. Keeping us in mind, great dances and high art can still be made.
Apollinaire responds: Hi, Jolene! If it's a business, it's going bankrupt (hehe)-but I get the point!
posted by jolene |
11/20/07, 2:46 AM | permalink
Has dance become so snobbish and elitist that we are afraid to express our opinion of some choreography we are "supposed" to like as balletomanes?
Sometimes, dance is simply dance...we don't have to know who did the backdrops, we don't have to know the choreographer's bio, who's the star onstage, etc. I think I forget sometimes that dance is sometimes as simple as whether we are emotionally touched or moved by the movements onstage...
Apollinaire responds: A good reminder! Thanks for writing, Jennifer!
posted by jennifer |
11/20/07, 1:15 AM | permalink
Hello all,
I have been reading this blog for about a month now and find it extremely intriguing. I will spare you my self- indulgent autobiography and cut to the chase.
I see the key to clear choreography as a matter of intent. Often, I feel that the choreographers themselves are pulled between whether to create a ballet for the audience, the dancers, or their own personal message. This causes confusion for all involved.
My personal opinion is that all art should be made with the audience/reader/viewer in mind. This does not mean that the art should be made to impress or please the spectator in question. However, a successful artist will at least be aware of how the work could be received and should make educated decisions based on this knowledge.
I hate to sound cynical, but our education system, which stresses grades and test scores over an emotional, complex, and original understanding of any art form, requires that artists save our own art forms. Whether we choose to print program notes, create less abstract ballets, or invite the public into our creative process is up to us.
I hope that my comments do not imply that I am against abstract or unconventional dance. I strongly appreciate all dance forms and see each one as crucial to the robust nature of the field.
What is important is that the audience feels that the choreographer has a clear intent; this will lead the spectator to a clear interpretation of their own even if it differs from the original "theme" of the choreographer.
Apollinaire responds: Thank you, Abigail, for writing--and your own clarity and nuance. I think most people would agree with you: It's CRAZY to be working in a performing art, with the audience built into the structure, and not include them in your consideration (even if that means goading them, defying their expectations, etc.).
posted by Abigail |
11/19/07, 10:11 AM | permalink
I think I'd better mention a couple of other thoughts. First, I apologize for not thanking the various participants in this wonderful discussion. I have appreciated too many points to enumerate.
Second, I hope I haven't given the impression that I think that each dance because it should have a purpose, should boil down to a coded message. I don't mean that at all. Perhaps, most if not all art has as its ultimate purpose to (re-)awaken us to the beauty of the moment experientially, so that we ourselves become more aware and awake and connected, but the specific themes, subject matter, style, medium, etc. of a work of art are not engineered like a chemical formula.
How the artist gets where he is going and serves his purpose is usually more intuitive and mystical. So I don't mean to dismiss intuitive work in and of itself as immature, or to dismiss intellectual work as inevitably lifeless. I want to see and experience purpose and intuition working hand in hand. I want intuition and creativity serving a higher purpose and I want that higher purpose to inspire and set free the artist's creative energies. If the artist is truly inspired, literally in spirit, and if we the audience and the artist meet, as Apollinaire said, half way, than we, too, should be inspired. And that's the only thing for which we should ever ask.
Apollinaire responds: Yes, the distinction you're making is a good one. Thank you for writing, Chris.
posted by Christopher Pelham |
11/19/07, 1:27 AM | permalink
Apollinaire, I would love to take you up on that offer! What's your fee and availability?! Now I am only half-joking. When CRS moves to a larger space and can be home to full-size dance classes and a larger theatre, we fully intend to place clarity of intention, mentoring and composition at the center of our pedagogy. I have long thought that professional mentoring is precisely what is largely lacking in dance. We want to help people grow as artists and not simply learn to control their muscles better.
Interestingly, it doesn't seem to be simply from a lack of resources though. Writers and theatre artists and musicians, etc. are often very broke much of the time, too, but that does not stop many of them from eagerly absorbing every bit of feedback and analysis that they can. Dance artists, on the other hand, in my experience, tend to be rather more fragile and wary of exposing themselves or their work to critique and editing. I'm guessing it's because in part many choreographers lack confidence, in themselves as well as in potential mentors, and many may lack confidence in their ability to engage in verbal analysis of their work and ideas. Obviously, their are some very verbal, intellectual and eloquent dancemakers, but then my own experience is that many people who are drawn into dance are drawn there precisely because they don't have to talk, don't have to answer to anyone. They can just channel their feeling into moving.
I'd like to add another thought: what is art but a self-conscious attempt to communicate? One cannot communicate without a) having a purpose, b) having a message, c) having a medium for the message, and d) having someone with whom to communicate.
So if there is no attempt at communication going on, then it's not art. It's exercise, it's exploration, it's meditation or masturbation, but it's not art. So many people want to think of themselves as artists and be able to say to their friends that they are making pieces, so they think of some superficial concept and slap together a combination of movements that feel good to them or that they know from class or that just came up while moving around in the studio, and then they show it with no thought at all about engaging the deepest truth of their being or trying to communicate anything or to create a profound, beautiful, honest, or life-changing experience for the audience. Just moving around instinctively, or worse, habitually, is not art unless there is a purpose and a desire to communicate something: for instance, notice how connected, unpredictable, alive and out of time we become when we truly dwell in the moment. If only that happened more often during improvisational performances!
But all this criticism is only meant to point the way toward a more honest and satisfying art. I don't know if we can all be great artists, but we can all strive to have our minds in order, to possess a clear idea of who we are and what we want to do and why, and that at least is a start.
posted by Christopher Pelham |
11/19/07, 1:04 AM | permalink
At the risk of stating the the unhelpfully too obvious, and without knowing anything about the work except what I've just read in your post, "Para-dice" could mean something like "for he or she speaks" or it could be a pun on "pair of dice" although in neither case could I suggest why.
I sometimes feel as if contemporary choreographers have been infected with a contagious virus that compels them to employ overly cute titles that are spelled and punctuated so as to let us know that their authors possess a sense of irony but in fact communicate simply that their authors have something in common with Prince or teen-aged text message addicts. :)
Apollinaire responds: hehe! I thought of the dice thing, too. Maybe "beyond dice," though I like "pair o' dice" better. Or for the Latinesque dice, perhaps "beyond speaking." And yes. Call out to choreographers: Ditch the cutesy titles, please!
Thanks for writing, Chris.
posted by Christopher Pelham |
11/04/07, 4:38 AM | permalink
Apollinaire...relax! First of all I didn't discern any snootiness in Mackrell's tone. If anything she is a champion of blogging - the only reviewer I know from a mainstream newspaper who does. And she does link to the discussion in the sentence "has inspired much wishful thinking about what an equivalent mass-market celebrity might do for dance." The link to the main site is from "Arts Journal" - a common practice in link etiquette.
I don't condone swiping material from other people's blogs (and I hate snootiness), but aren't you being just a bit oversensitive about this?
Apollinaire responds: Well, I understand standards of politeness in the blogosphere are very low, so, according to them, yep, I'm oversensitive. But would you borrow someone's scarf, say, with, "Hey, can I borrow your ratty scarf?" Replace "ratty" with "chatter," and you've got Mackrell. Not a big deal, but annoying.
Plus, having a blog isn't the same as championing blogging. I don't see much championing going on there (or here, for that matter).
posted by Mugger |
10/27/07, 9:54 AM | permalink
Thank you for pulling all these reviews together. I loved Nureyev, starting with the moment I first saw him, on film at what I am remembering as the Seattle Opera House, although that can't be right. It was Corsaire pas de deux with Fonteyn. I also saw him dancing horribly with the Boston Ballet in NYC, and beautifully in London, and horribly again in NYC...
The point about Nureyev was that there was no reticence. He was no post-modernist, he was not apologetic about the grand ballet gesture. Several years after I first saw him live, I did a reconstruction of Water Study, danced by a truly motley collection of workshop attendees, with Ernestine Stodelle. She introduced our performance (in August at Dia with no air-conditioning) in a 20 minute speech about The Dance. She was wearing lavender chiffon and looked glorious; the fact that only a few of us could actually DO the movement didn't affect her feeling about the occasion in the slightest.
The glorious arrogance of Ernestine, quoting Nietzsche and Doris Humphrey before a mediocre workshop performance; the grandeur of Nureyev insisting simultaneously on his right to get on stage and on the necessity for perfection in everyone and everyone else - it's a kind of grand refusal to see reality that is required if you are dedicated to the idea that somewhere, danced perfection exists. This sentence is confused -- but so is the mindset it springs from. I think its impossible to BE a dancer if you are not also utopian - and the ideal moment constantly slipping away is the other part of the deal. And that is deeply confusing in all kinds of ways.
For me, who got to see it in action, the point of someone as talented, as ferociously determined, as glamourosly beautiful, and as singleminded as Nureyev was that he was there, proving that a certain kind of devotion to greatness was not only possible, but something to be waved like a flag (I'm getting into the 'grandeur' myself!). And that was so immensely refreshing, like standing under an icy waterfall. It woke you up.
And it was adult. There was a person on stage, making choices which sometimes failed -- but which were choices, and evidence, in fact, of the thinking engagement of the artist with his form.
Apollinaire responds: WOW. This is wonderful. It's so great to be reminded of that era--of Ernestine and LA Dance. And, yeah, the contemporary impulse, which is to flatten reality and insist on its flatness, is working at the opposite extreme.
posted by lise brenner |
10/22/07, 11:02 AM | permalink
For realz. There seemed to be a cathartic air to all the Nureyev criticism. I posted about a couple reviews by Ms. Joan and by British critic John Carey: http://countercritic.com/?s=Nureyev
The bottom line is, when we write publicly about a sexually promiscuous figure, we still have to condemn them in some way. We can't just say, "They were a slut, and good for them!" But it seems that critics are using the bio as a catalyst for long-held angst toward Nureyev. And Acocella's rip on Nureyev's intelligence is right in-line with Western derision of the body (ergo, dance and sex) as essentially unintelligent--without mind--or, literally, "mindless," as Carey puts it.
Apollinaire responds: thank you for this, c.c. I like yr interpretation for why they're ripping him to shreds, but I'm not entirely sure if it's the sex thing and the Western notions of the body thing or just that people can't stand the idea that someone might take up more room than THEY get to and so they're scaling him down to size. Or maybe they're simply following Kavanagh's passive-aggressive lead. (She lets everyone tell his story for him, so of course he looks terrible--people are prone to complain, assuming that the listener will use her good sense. Lesson #1: never assume!)
Part of me--the cynical part--thinks Kavanagh must be connected to someone everyone in the sycophantic world of dance wants to stay on the good side of. (Why Paul--way over on the West Coast--wouldn't know any better than to still love the guy. But, hey, *I* don't know any better, and I'm here. I guess it goes to show who's in and who's out of the loop.)
posted by Counter Critic |
10/22/07, 10:36 AM | permalink
Before we can get kids to "do" dance, we have to get them to watch dance -- cart before horse.
posted by Jamie Wright |
10/22/07, 3:49 AM | permalink
Oh beautiful, beautiful review, Paul!
Both of the book and of his life! My favorite so far, definitely! I actually wasn't aware of how many people, how many critics, really disliked Nureyev until Kavanagh's book came out -- it's very disappointing to me.
So, I'm so glad someone came down firmly on the opposite side, and so poetically too. I have to admit I'm struggling a bit through the book. It's just so, detailed, as Paul says, and I find myself losing the forest for the trees. But I do appreciate all the very hard work she's put into it and I feel like, if anything, it can kind of function as an encyclopedia if I need to look anything up. Thank you for the condensed version!
posted by tonya |
10/21/07, 7:29 PM | permalink
I know I'm a little late but to comment on Ms.Sele's response- your style as a moderator is your style; I was not questioning the freedom granted you to run the panel as you saw fit. Your accumulated knowledge and expertise in the field were no doubt reasons for your being chosen to moderate. Passion and opinion are wonderfully stimulating. I was merely reporting on what took place, and on that note, I did not mention your history with Mr. Lemon because the extent of it was never discussed in that forum. How was I or anyone else in the room to know your history with Ralph Lemon and his work? I was simply relaying what was expressed at the event; at that time you did not communicate those things; therefore... I never implied that it was a "sin" that on first sight you did not "get" it. I actually thought it was kinda cool that at some point you did- I wish others were that open to possibility. However, had you gone into detail about your relationship to him and his work, it would have been a different story. In addition no one is questioning your record or process as a curator-I'm not sure how that came into play but it was not even an issue in your role as moderator. One has nothing to do with the other.
posted by Theresa Ruth Howard |
10/19/07, 3:09 AM | permalink
Bad netiquette! I've had people copy and paste some of my blog posts to their own sites and not credit or link it back to me. I can understand it happening in random blogs on the net... but the Guardian? Shame!
Apollinaire responds: Oh, she linked it back--laxly. You know, to the general site, not the discussion. The problem was she was snooty about it. If you're going to borrow other people's ideas, you're really in no position to dis them, I think.
posted by Maria |
10/17/07, 10:46 PM | permalink
I stopped going to ballets years ago- I composed two, but couldn't help but notice most of what I saw were reruns of 19th century repertory. Please, no more regional performances of " Nutcracker "!
posted by Robert Jordahl |
10/15/07, 10:30 AM | permalink
Hi. I don't know if this is stating the obvious. Maybe it will be new for a lot of younger dancers and dance afficionados: Maya Deren made some hauntingly beautiful films of dance and even her non-dance films sometimes feel like dance. For those who don't know, Maya was the queen of American avant-garde filmmaking, and her films are often shown at Anthology Film Archives. They are also available for sale on VHS and DVD online.
Apollinaire responds: No, not the obvious--and for those of us who are familiar with her name, always good to be reminded. Thank you, Christopher.
posted by Christopher Pelham |
10/12/07, 12:26 PM | permalink
Michael Jackson is not a child molester. Michael Jackson is unquestionablely the best singer in the world. Walk down any street in the work and ask 10 people at random to sing or even name 10 Pavarotti songs then done the same for Michael Jackson. We both know most people will easily sing & name Michael song and very few would even be able to name Pavarotti songs.
posted by Kent |
09/21/07, 11:20 PM | permalink
"The closest thing we've got is the very-compromised Michael Jackson, who's A) probably a child molester and B) unable to dance anymore"
Very cheap shot. Nasty and most likely false.
That said, if it's a household name at least as (world)famous as Pavarotti's that you're looking for, then hell yes, Michael Jackson is the Pavarotti of dance. I'm not saying he's the most talented dancer in the world (although there's no denying he is superb), but certainly the most famous and with the largest following. He has tons of people from the entire globe studying and imitating his dancing. No matter how controversial he is, that doesn't take anything away from his talent.
I do hope that your including of John Revolting in this topic was a joke, however.
posted by Josh |
09/21/07, 1:30 PM | permalink
"Liking either ballet or opera is like liking brandy ...."
Cited as quotable metaphors-analogies in Metaphor-Analogy Archive".
Thank you.
Apollinaire responds: No, thank you!
posted by Carl Gistout |
09/20/07, 3:01 AM | permalink
Great article! I'll be really excited to watch it now, although it would be on the one night this week I actually have theater tickets (I'll tape it though). Annoyingly though, apparently PBS isn't broadcasting it everywhere: http://artsplace.blogspot.com/2007/08/sad-no-mozart-dances-on-west-coast.html
Apollinaire responds: Thank you, Tonya. At mmdg.org, the Mark Morris Dance Group site, you can type in your zip code and see what your local viewing options are. Nifty!
posted by Tonya |
08/14/07, 2:34 PM | permalink
In response to your response to Wendy, I just saw Sarah Lane in "The Sleeping Beauty" in Orange County and she wasn't perfect, but her performance was full of heart. Definitely the most emotionally moving Aurora I've seen at ABT (I've seen Veronika Part, Gillian Murphy & Lane). Amazing debut!
Apollinaire responds: Thanks so much for letting us East Coasters know, Jennifer. We didn't get to see her out here.
posted by jennifer |
07/23/07, 12:15 AM | permalink
My mentor, Douglas Rosenberg ( http://www.dvpg.net ) has written and spoken extensively on the difference between screen dance and live dance, and the difficulties/advantages of doing both. I look at it as simply a different venue, just as you would adjust a dance presented on a thrust stage vs. a traditional proscenium.
Any thoughts that the screen robs dance of anything would, I think, be addressed with "Still/Here" by Bill T. Jones. The medium is not a replacement for dance; it's an extension of it.
Apollinaire responds: Interesting. Thank you, Gray
posted by Gray |
07/19/07, 9:38 AM | permalink
Sounds good. Perfect to sip while watching Michalek's Slow Dancing films outside at Lincoln Center! I'm gonna print it out and bring it to the Plaza bartender this weekend...
Apollinaire responds: Neat!
posted by Tonya |
07/13/07, 2:42 PM | permalink
Okay, you've sold it to me! I'll have to go to the next one! It sounds kind of Ann Liv Young-esque with crowd participation...
Apollinaire responds: a nice comparison, Tonya, in the sense that both arouse strong reactions. Ann Liv Young is probably the only show in recent memory I couldn't stop myself from booing. (I wasn't on duty as reviewer, thank God. It wasn't the Kitchen show, but a piece at an anti-Iraq invasion benefit.) Elaine Tin Nyo is much more classy and subtle--but in this setting, that ended up being a liability.
posted by Tonya |
07/11/07, 11:42 AM | permalink
A few thoughts run to mind...
So many support the arts, so few support the artists.
Everyone's a critic. Matisse (?) said it best: "Creativity takes courage."
I say, 'if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.'
Ayn Rand said, 'It takes two to make a very great career: the (wo)man who is great, and the (wo)man -almost rarer -who is great enough to see greatness and say so.'
Deb & I continue to discover that where there's a will, there's
a way.
Hat's off to Ladies Who Launch.
We too are realizing our dreams.
Refreshing, thought-provoking blog.
Apollinaire responds: Thank you, Kevro
posted by Kevro |
07/08/07, 4:59 PM | permalink
Due to my recent schedule, the last live dance performance I attended was Boston Ballet's Balanchine program in May. 2 of the 3 works performed are also available on Nonesuch - "Ballo della Regina" and "Four Temperaments." On that evening, I felt there was more energy conveyed in my 30-year-old Dance in America recordings than on the Wang Center stage. Perhaps Paul Parish would conclude this comparison doesn't speak well of Boston Ballet.
As a ballet patron and classical musician, does recording replace live performance? Yes and no. As a Balanchine fanatic I feel a lot of what made Balanchine great has gotten lost in years of restaging his ballets without his supervision. Or maybe it is better to take the analogy of a tailor having made this one suit for a specific individual, then having to readjust the suit over the years on different bodies. After the tailor dies, so does the original vision of the suit - new tailors may have different ideas of how that suit should be fit on a new body.
Archival video footage of Balanchine's ballets are so important to understanding them. As someone who is only 30, I never had the opportunity to see Farrell live. And perhaps I cannot understand her dance genius as fully as those who saw her live. What I can say is that her power translates to me on film - her musicality, her timing, her off-balance technique - and I can say I have never seen her like on a live stage in my lifetime.
Is film of Farrell better than live Farrell? No. Is it better than no Farrell at all? YES! Is Farrell on film dancing "Diamonds," "Tzigane" or "Chaconne" better than most performances I've seen at the State Theater or elsewhere? YES! Is watching Diana Adams and Arthur Mitchell performing the "Agon" pas de duex on B&W film more illuminating than watching it live on the State Theater stage 40 years later? YES! And watching the progression of "Agon" being passed down from Adams to Allegra Kent to Farrell (with both Mitchell and Peter Martins) gives us a window into Balanchine's process. We, the audience, can better understand Balanchine by examing the film history of his ballets. Why did he set "Agon" on Diana Adams? Why did he allow Kent and Farrell to dance this ballet? What qualities did these three dancers bring to Balanchine ballets? How are these qualities reflected in his choreography? These are issues the Balanchine Trust does not understand - or else they would make all this archival CBC film available for purchase.
Dance on film has power in 2-D form - although the relevence may depend on the subject matter. Based on my post, perhaps I should say Balanchine on film has relevence, power and is of great importance to understanding his ballets.
Cutting back on dance exposure on TV, film and with the KGBalanchine Trust banning YouTube footage of his ballets - why should the public attend an art form they have little exposure to?
Exposure leads to understanding! PBS now caters to Doo-Wop Boomers while rarely showing symphony and ballet performances. I am not a fan of opera - although PBS is mostly broadcasting this art form. However, we can use the example set by the MET with their HD broadcasts and the availability of opera on DVD. It's not that dance doesn't translate as well as opera on film, it's just that there is not that much GOOD DANCING available on DVD. I won't even mention the horrible transfer quality of the Balanchine Dance in America footage to DVD.
Apollinaire responds:
Griffin, very interesting. A few quick thoughts: I agree that when the dancer and choreography are great, we'll take anything we can get, and dream the rest. It is enough to start that process. I'll bet Paul would agree. We've often exchanged notes on recordings.
Plus, you said the archival footage gives you a deeper understanding of Balanchine, but I'm wondering, are you also having an experience? Maybe once a person is hooked on a choreographer, that distinction is moot: one's understanding feeds the experience, even in the moment. Often with Balanchine, a thought about how he is working brings me more fully into his universe (and it IS a universe, isn't it? That big and complete.)
Finally, I agree that if the Balanchine Trust is pulling excerpts off Youtube, they are fools: YouTube is free advertising--and people will pursue further some miracle they catch a glimpse of there. Wouldn't it be wild if people started to incorporate bits of Balanchine into their "Aunt Jackie" or "Chicken Noodle Soup" routines--or the ballet equivalent? There's already a "Merce Sabbath" up. (here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzS1y5KGXeU)
There may be intellectual property laws, but art really doesn't work according to those laws. The cool thing about YouTube is it's really amenable to art-making--that process of influence, infiltration and dissemination.
Thanks so much for writing, Griffin
posted by griffin |
06/28/07, 4:14 PM | permalink
Theresa Ruth Howard wrote: "This is a large part of the problem with dance and race: Why does dance by people of color have to look a certain way for the audience to 'get it'? Why do people assume an African American's work has to take on issues of race in the most obvious ways, while white artists can paint in broad strokes and a plethora of palettes and be accepted and often applauded for the stretch?"
Many people allow the communal definition of race to limit them, rather than simply being themselves and allowing others to change their definitions of race. Howard seemed to think that a large part of the problem is the pressure of audience expectation, but I would disagree.
The audience sees *the work* first and foremost--usually having no idea who the choreographer is, where he/she comes from or what he/she looks like (unless the choreographer is a part of a racially driven festival). A good choreographer will be appreciated for making beautiful work no matter what his or her background.
Alonzo King, Ralph Lemon, and Gus Solomons Jr. perform in some of the most prestigious concert halls in the U.S., often to sold out houses and rave reviews by major critics. I can think of a thousand choreographers (of all races) who will never reach such heights.
In her post, Howard said, "Sele had mentioned not 'getting' postmodern choreographer Ralph Lemon's work, because it wasn't what she had 'expected' to see."
This is an important and interesting comment. However, it doesn't serve as an example of the response of an average *audience member*! Baraka Sele is a presenter for the New Jersey Performing Arts Center and therefore one of the group of people who ultimately decides which companies get to perform, where, and how often. Unlike the average audience member, she would have received a press packet about Ralph Lemon before she ever saw a performance. So, it is no wonder that she came to the theater with preconceived ideas!
How much do presenters judge choreographers purely on their press packets? Does race factor into the decisions about whom to present, when and how? And how much does the way a dance is presented affect the views of the audience?
I don't know. But this is a serious issue that needs to be considered.
posted by Claire Willey |
06/15/07, 7:39 PM | permalink
The Met proscenium width is 50 feet. I suspect that ABT built a set for The Sleeping Beauty that can be toured--that is the likeliest reason that it does not take advantage of the width available on the Met stage.
Apollinaire responds: It's too bad the trestle-wings can't be eliminated and the little castle widened when the space is available--you know, extra yardage put in the castle bridge or something. It's just so cramped. And the problem is, if they shrink the corps for the Garland Dance and the vision scene by much it will look underpopulated. They should probably shrink it by a couple of dancers, even so.
Thank you for writing, Sinyet.
posted by sinyet |
06/13/07, 10:25 PM | permalink
I attended the performance Friday night June 8th, and was one of the audience members who was dragged onto the stage to participate. It was one of the strangest and most exhilirating experiences I have had in many years.
There was no time to think - everything was happening so quickly. All I could do was concentrate with all my might on what my partner was doing and try to keep up. First we were fast dancing. Then I was standing with all the other participants from the audience with the dance company dancing wildly around us. Then my parter came back and led me first in a tango, then he twirled me around several times, and then we were slow dancing. I was concentrating so hard, I had no idea what was happening around the stage. Then he whispered that the dance was about to end and I should walk slowly off the stage. The music stopped and the whole company was sprawled on the floor, and I realized I was the only one standing up on the stage-- in the spotlight. "wow"
Apollinaire responds: Thanks for this report, Sharon. Naharin has orchestrated that bit of audience participation so well that it's actually exhilihirating to watch, too. (I was in the audience on Sunday.) I'm not a fan of audience participation, but Naharin has nearly made me a convert.
posted by Sharon |
06/11/07, 4:45 PM | permalink
I found the link on Doug's Great Dance blog and listened to it -- you and Claudia were great! I do wish it would have gone on for longer though, and I hate how it ended (on such a good question!) I agree with you and Eva, that there should be more of these interviews, or monthly or biweekly segments, in the future!
Thanks, by the way, for the great discussion on the opera versus ballet question (which I notice the radio interviewer alluded to!) I'm just getting back from England and am catching up on blog-reading and am reading over yours and your commenters' posts and thinking about them. Your blog always has such good discussions!
From Apollinaire: Thank you, Tonya. Glad you're back. Look forward to the reports on the ballroom extravaganza.
posted by Tonya |
06/04/07, 5:58 PM | permalink
Dear Anonymous,
Calling something that you don't care for "masturbatory" is as pretentious as you claim Tere O'Connor to be.
Furthermore, saying that O'Connor does not belong in the performance world, but rather in "academia," is insulting to O'Connor, his colleagues, his audiences, and his funders. Clearly someone is interested in what he has to say.
It is presumptious of you to say art exists "simply to entertain the audience."
Did somebody pass a law? If so, I missed it.
Thanks.
JJ
posted by JJ |
04/30/07, 12:10 AM | permalink
I had the dubious pleasure of attending the Nothing Festival, and the panel discussion on Saturday. While I confess to being slightly ignorant of modern dance, I feel that Tere O'Connor belongs in academia and not in the performance world.
As an average theatre-goer, much of his anger at the audience and at critics seemed incredibly pretentious. It seems he has forgotten the goal of the arts simply to entertain an audience. I'm not saying things can't have deeper meaning, or that one needs to pander to popular opinion, but when I pay twenty-five bucks to see something, it better be worth the money! And I do read dance criticism, from the NYTimes to the Village Voice, blogs, etc. The main reason I read criticism is to know WHETHER I SHOULD GO SEE SOMETHING OR NOT. I'm not reading them to discern a dance's place in the pantheon of modern aesthetics or to enlighten myself. And I think most people read them for the same reason I do. There are critics that I read regularly, because I tend to agree with them (Claudia and Gia, for example), and have come to trust their opinions.
Thank God for the one woman who stood up and let Tere have it. [ed. note: um, that would be me (I admit abashedly)]. Perhaps she was a little too riled up [indeed!], but she had perhaps the only valid points that I had heard the entire time. I was so grateful that someone was willing not to pat him on the back for being novel and smart. The entire festival seems masturbatory, and I left the panel discussion angry and disappointed.
posted by Anonymous |
04/27/07, 9:54 AM | permalink
For as long as I remember when artists have applied for funding, the artist says whatever he needs to say to get it, and then does whatever he'd always when or if he gets that funding!
The whole distinction between knowing and not knowing your plan before executing it is beside the point. Dance enthusiasts' examination of "nothing" as an idea for a festival misses the point that this is just a context to present work, to encourage dialogue, maybe support artists who are interesting to the curator. To question or even oppose the curatorial idea is to miss that idea entirely.
posted by dnal |
04/26/07, 4:48 PM | permalink
I agree. Aszure Barton is brilliant. I loved "Les Chambres des Jacques" and highly recommend seeing it.
posted by |
04/25/07, 9:09 PM | permalink
Back to Main Discussion
