Funny, I wrote about feeling alienated as an audience member on Move the Frame blog on 10/31/07: http://greatdance.com/movetheframe/2007/10/clare-byrne-and-i-have.php

I think there is something in the air we're all picking up on. Ultimately I think this will always be an issue with experimental art. No matter what, it's going to be a challenge to most audiences. If you want to engage them or certain groups specifically, you need to pick up some tips from market researchers. This doesn't mean in a cold and calculating way for profits, it could just mean starting a dialogue with your target audience from the beginning of your creative process, and letting their feedback influence your work. I'm going to post about this Monday.

I think all modern dance artists need to think about what their work is ABOUT and think about how to give your audience clues. All art has a theme; if you can't identify that theme and talk about it in a meaningful way, I think every intelligent audience member has the right to say, "this is pretentious bull crap" and stomp right out of the theater. I don't know your work at all but I've seen enough experimental work (including ballet, including Wheeldon, which the Traiger post you link to mentions) that I've given way too much thought to, struggled to find meaning, only to realize the choreographer didn't have a clue as to what they were trying to say but somehow wanted the audience to get something from it anyway. Assinine.

Tonya, I certainly do think that any audience member has the right to "stomp out of the theater". I think it gets more tricky if you feel you have the right to label something "pretentious bull crap" - just by labeling something like that means you feel you know enough or are an authority and that seems pretty pretentious. Certainly, you have every right not to like something, but when you start making grand judgments it gets murkier.

I find most choreographers do know what their dances are "about", but much of it gets lost from their mind to the stage. The problems are many - not enough training, not enough rehearsal, not enough money (to pay for more time and rehearsals), not a clear process, too tied to a style or aesthetic, afraid to suck, etc.. And, alot of art is bad and doesn't succeed - a problem with dance is that you perform it in front of an audience when you've made something - it is hard to make a dance and then not perform it. Most poets write many more poems than they publish, most painters paint many more paintings than they show and musicians write many more songs than they perform or put on a CD. Few choreographers make a dance and don't show it. Maybe we should. If we made more and then showed only our best that might help. But, it is so time consuming and expensive to make even a simple dance not showing it doesn't really seem like an option.

The question of the audience getting anything out of the performance is many fold - one person may think the performance sucks and for another it is a significant work of art. If a performance is not in an aesthetic you prefer or are familiar with you might find it difficult or confusing - if you love ballet than contact improvisation might not be your cup of tea. And, again, I don't think it is (in most cases) that the choreographer doesn't know what they are trying to say, they are just not saying/expressing it well. I think most artists want to be understood and to effect or move the audience.

Lastly, are you suggesting Wheeldon is experimental????

a problem with dance is that you perform it in front of an audience when you've made something - it is hard to make a dance and then not perform it. Most poets write many more poems than they publish, most painters paint many more paintings than they show and musicians write many more songs than they perform or put on a CD. Few choreographers make a dance and don't show it. Maybe we should. If we made more and then showed only our best that might help. But, it is so time consuming and expensive to make even a simple dance not showing it doesn't really seem like an option.

Daniel, I think you get to the heart of the issue right here. Even when you don't like a painting it is easier to extricate yourself from the situation-- you just keep walking on to the next piece in the gallery. Walking out of a piece you don't like (particularly under the circumstances you described) is a delicate thing. I think viewers of dance often have higher expectations because they are more likely to have paid a lot of money to see dance than to see a gallery show or museum. There is also a time investment issue-- I can spend one minute looking at a sculpture, but the duration of a dance piece is generally much longer.

Now as for what it takes for someone to "get" something, I think we are holding dance audiences to a higher standard than the museum-going public. I don't really think that TV viewers are being exposed to any more "fine" visual arts than they are being exposed to the "fine" performing arts. Yes, it may be an issue of taste, education, and experience. I may pooh-pooh people who only buy paintings to match their sofa, but it's a more hidden crowd. I am not going to be able to pick those people out in a museum (if they come to the museum, of course). It's certainly a much gutsier and highly visible act to walk right out of a theater in plain view of the performers.

You suggest that not all dance that gets created should be shown, just as other works of art get edited/deleted. Do you think that there are enough resources for choreographers to make that a reality-- not only to compensate the dancers for their time spent in practice and creation, but also in getting real feedback from a variety of sources? Amanda recently suggested an informal venue for choreographers to share works in progress and get feedback. I think that would be a great place to start, at least in terms of the feedback.