{"id":929,"date":"2009-08-18T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-18T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp\/2009\/08\/links_-_the_highlow_gap_in_dan\/"},"modified":"2009-08-18T05:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-08-18T12:00:00","slug":"links_-_the_highlow_gap_in_dan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/2009\/08\/links_-_the_highlow_gap_in_dan.html","title":{"rendered":"The high\/low divide rots dance criticism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Alastair Macaulay’s essay about the kind of ballroom dance found on TV shows – Ballroom: More Sexily, Less Strictly<\/a><\/i> – speaks to the radical divide between high dance and low:<\/p>\n

Not So Strictly On TV — the British reality series “Strictly Come Dancing,” which began
\nin 2004, and the American “So You Think You Can Dance,” which started
\nin 2005 — we see all the good-humored hard work that both sexes put
\ninto performing ballroom.
\nIn such a context I only occasionally pause to consider that their
\nendeavor itself is gross….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

The little I see of “So You Think You Can Dance” and “Strictly Come
\nDancing” tends to put me off watching more; the camera angles seldom
\nhelp you judge footwork; the whole climate feels manipulative; and the
\ndances themselves aren’t those I’d want good performers to learn…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

What makes me wretched is that all these stunts, acrobatics,
\npoint-scoring and flashy displays of sexual availability are what
\nmatter. Musicality, phrasing, intimacy and actual sensuousness are what
\ndon’t.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The little he sees of it<\/b>. Ordinarily, admitting that you haven’t seen what you’re attacking is not thought of as good form. <\/p>\n

And yet Apollinaire Scherr rushed to agree, here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I’ve been wanting to write this piece forever, and probably because I
\nknew it would seem hopelessly snobby–I can’t tell you how many people
\nwhose only exposure to dance are these shows ask me eagerly what I
\nthink of them–somehow haven’t. I just say I haven’t watched them much,
\nwhich is true enough, but the reason is that they give me a
\nstomachache.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I just say I haven’t watched them much, which is true enough…<\/b><\/p>\n

I’m not going to defend Dancing With the Stars<\/i>. It’s amateur hour with coaches. But So You Think You Can Dance<\/i>? There are dancers on that show qualified to be in any contemporary company in existence. Some of the choreography is corny and over-the-top, but far from all of it. <\/p>\n

Alastair Macaulay is not only a good writer. He’s the only full-time dance critic employed at a newspaper in the United States. He has weight. I can’t imagine why he wants to swing it at a target he hasn’t seen. <\/p>\n

What is it with dance critics? Do they dream of divine forms they can’t bear to see sullied by daily life? <\/p>\n

When Arlene Croce attacked Bill T. Jones’ Still\/Here in 1995, with an (unlinkable) essay that began, “I have not seen Bill T Jones’ Still\/Here and have no plans to review it<\/span>,” she besmirched her career, not his, because what followed was a review of Jones’ meanings as she misunderstood them. (Her piece discussed here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Macaulay more recently wrote a lovely piece about Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, here<\/a>. Had he been watching So You Think You Can Dance<\/i>, however, he’d have known that Benji Schwimmer, dancing below with his cousin, Heidi Groskreutz, won<\/span> first place on the show in 2006. Instead of maintaining that its dancers lack “musicality, phrasing, intimacy and actual sensuousness,” Macaulay would have seen a genuine heir to Astaire.<\/p>\n

<\/object><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Alastair Macaulay’s essay about the kind of ballroom dance found on TV shows – Ballroom: More Sexily, Less Strictly – speaks to the radical divide between high dance and low: Not So Strictly On TV — the British reality series “Strictly Come Dancing,” which began in 2004, and the American “So You Think You Can […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-929","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/929","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=929"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/929\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=929"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=929"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/anotherbb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=929"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}