Unfortunately, Abrams left out the most important question in her OpEd (unless the Post edited it out): what DOES make a good modern dancer. Without that vital information, I'm sorry but I feel her letter is simply complaining that a critic didn't "get" something she can't even identify.

I definitely don't think dance writers need actual dance training for two reasons. First, if you have a lot of training, you tend to overuse dance vocabulary and talk about technical aspects that the average reader, who's reading your review, doesn't understand. It's hard to be a lay-person in other words. Also, there are so many different kinds of dance and the great majority of dancers don't even have training in all forms: hip hop, ballet, modern, ballroom, break, step, tap, Irish, African ... the list goes on. You can't expect to get a writer trained in hip hop reviewing your hip hop performance, tap your tap dance, modern modern, etc. etc., the field could never be that specialized.

I think in order to be a great critic, you need a good, solid background in ALL arts -- literary, visual, everything. Of course a good background in general dance history is essential too, but my favorites are those who can see dance as an art, and who can relate it to all arts. And, who have immaculate writing ability. Many hail Joan Acocella as one of the best current dance critics: her background is in comparative literature; she has no dance training and is not trained as a critic (as she fully admits). I don't think Arlene Croce had dance training, nor did probably the best-respected dance critic in history, Edwin Denby. He was a poet though, and he had great respect for dance as an art, like poetry, and it shows in his writing. He had immense respect for dance, and even when he was criticizing someone, he never let lose on them and completely trashed their work; he respected them as the artist he himself was.

This is a really good issue and I hope you get some good responses. I don't mean to be harsh on Abrams; I just really wish she would have listed the features she considers essential to a good modern dancer. We had a little bit of this kind of discussion at Tere O'Connor's "Nothing Festival" last year around this time, and he ended on a dialog with dance writer Elizabeth Zimmer about what is valued in a performance: the technique of the dancers, beauty, etc. She had just started to answer when our time was up unfortunately. I think it would be great to take it up from there.

I think this is a really good issue to be considering...the role and qualifications of a critic.

Tonya raises some interesting points.

I myself (trying to be both a dancer and a dance writer simulatenously...) am still in a toss up over whether I think a critic should have a dance background. In this case of this review and situation, I think I agree with Tonya. You don't necessarily need dance training to appreciate and respect dance, but as a critic you need to be able to constructively make judgements about a piece of art and then communicate that (supported) opinion with effective writing. As Tonya mentioned, Edwin Denby's writing is incredibly poetic and though it can be hard to do a nonverbal artform justice through words, his writing is as beautiful as the dancing it describes.

Dance is certainly a complex art form, and to argue from a dancer's perspective I know that it is hard to accept that some people just don't "get it" sometimes. However from a journalist/critic's perspective, I think an outside eye with the ability to (hopefully) objectively critique something given to them in performance outstands a lack of depth in knowledge of technique.

Ritzel's bio that is linked to here doesn't show that she has dance training, but it certainly demonstrates qualifications for being a critic. She mentions associations with theater and music critics, and unfortunately the dance world is so small in terms of American culture that it is often thrown in with theater/music/opera a lot of times. It's lucky to be covered at all sometimes. But I do think that she, on paper at least, has the credentials to "be published and presented as authoritative" in writing an arts review through her fellowship and background.

With that said, I do partially agree with the part in Abrams' letter that reads:

"However, her description of those dancers as 'by far the most talented at the showcase' illustrated, disturbingly, that Ritzel knows little about modern dance and what makes a good dancer."

It's hard to say what makes a good dancer, and as Tonya noted, it might have been nice if Abrams had mentioned characteristics. But I DO disagree with the use of the words "most talented at the showcase," because, as a dancer, I feel like the word "talent" can be too subjective to be judged to the extreme of "most" like that.

I'm rambling a bit but will think on this more...interesting discussion and I hope more people comment!

To be clear, I don't necessarily think that someone needs years of technical training in dance to be a critic. But, I also believe that that person needs to have a substantial understanding of the art form. General knowledge of art or the performing arts seems inadequate. If someone is criticizing, say, classical music is it not important for them to be able to articulate the difference between composers, different approaches/interpretations of conductors and musicians and the quality of the performance? If a critic can't tell if a singer is on or off key are they qualified? Again, this is a question of the role of the critic - are they just to give a "person off the street" reaction, or be able to contextualize the performance for readers, or judge from their aesthetic preference, or just describe what happened?

I would think that Ritzel has qualifications to do feature articles, but not critic.

Also, I don't know if Amanda needed to give her definition of what makes a good dancer, as Ritzel didn't, and, of course, that would probably take up way too much room.

But two wrongs don't make a right -- just because Ritzel neglected to make her critique specific doesn't mean Abrams can do it too. How are we ever going to have a real conversation about dance if people are just going to launch general, personalized attacks at each other? Can a reader have any appreciation for an argument that goes: "You're wrong and you don't have proper credentials." "No, you're wrong and I'm right." "No, I'm right and you're wrong."... To someone who doesn't know anything about modern dance, that's what I feel like the exchange between Abrams and Riztel sounds like. If there are no solid standards stated for judging what is good technique, how can we talk about it?

Anyway, I found this in a comment by Maria (of "A Time to Dance") on Ariel's blog; is it what you were looking for regarding Bettman?: http://bourgeononline.com/?p=124

I agree with Tonya that we need some common basis for which to judge technique, and going back and forth without justification is just a waste of time.

Daniel, you wrote "Again, this is a question of the role of the critic - are they just to give a "person off the street" reaction, or be able to contextualize the performance for readers, or judge from their aesthetic preference, or just describe what happened?"

I think the role of the critic is still up for debate, but basically I think that a critic needs to evaluate a performance for its artistic value, put it into some kind of context for readers outside of the dance world, and give readers an idea of what the performance was like, both aesthetically and emotionally. In that link Tonya gave, one of the critics said "Important to make sure the reader can almost see the event." I've heard this from several critics describing their job and think this is one of the more important aspects.

Also on the subject of critics having dance experience, Ariel posted on her blog about the question of who is to judge experience? "Who's the gauge?" That's kind of what I was getting at earlier...how can we determine what depth and type of experience makes one critic better than another? You say "an understanding of the art form" is sufficient, but to what level...

Hi Daniel. Your post definitely made me think long and hard about the topic. I posted about it on my blog, but I wanted to comment what I posted here as well. I'm a former dancer who's also been an editor responsible for assigning reviews to writers. I don't review dance because I'm not that great at it, but as someone who's spent a little time in both worlds, I have listed many reasons why I don't think that critics should neccesarily be experienced in dance.

That's not to say, however, that they shouldn't have dance experience, but I believe that good critics come in all ranges: from lay people to experts.

My reasons:

1. Affiliations. Any critic who’s experienced in their subject matter will most like be affiliated or formerly affiliated with the people of their field, which removes their bias. If so-and-so critic spent five years dancing with San Francisco Ballet, are they going to honestly review their latest performance? Probably not. They will always be connected somehow to the organizations or people they used to work with.

2. Who’s the gauge? If newspapers and publications were to decide to only assign reviews to their most experienced critics, then who would be the judge of what’s considered experience? 20 years training in the U.S. verses five years at a moms-and-pops dance school learning baton twirling? A masters degree in dance from an accredited university? Of course, placing limits on what is considered “experience” excludes all of those people without formal training who spent 10 years viewing a company enough to be an expert, while someone who’s danced their whole life doesn’t know who Balanchine is (those people do exist). This opens an additional can of worms: editors at these publications might not know enough about dance to deem what Is enough experience for their assignments. If writers were chosen based on this, the readers wouldn’t even be the ones responsible.

3. Newsroom dynamics. As I wrote earlier, I’ve been on the other side of the desk, serving as both a critic and as the editor handing out assignments to writers. On average, who wrote what depended less on their experience and more on their talent and convenience. I’ve had writers who had lots of experience in their subject, but were likely to flake out on reviews or never available the evenings of the performance, or never wrote well enough. This also worked in the reverse. Sometimes it depends on who needs an assignment.

A lot less thought goes into it than you’d think. A writer who delivers consistently will always be chosen because a newsroom is always under a deadline, and can’t afford to miss a minute to rewrite something by someone else. People mistakenly think that “experience” is the number one consideration when story assignments are handed out, but in a newsroom, there are often more important things considered like: does the writer respect deadlines? Does the writer stay within word count? Do they produce clean copy and write in the tone of the publication, etc.?

4. Talent.This one might be obvious, but just because they can dance or have experience in dance, doesn’t mean they can write well about it, and vice versa. Placing an emphasis on training and less on what they produce would be ineffective.

In the first place, there are only 5 newspapers with full-time dance critics in the country. What does this say? Either this is a reflection on how important dance is to society, or it is a reflection on the great need that the art community has for dance critics. What came first, the chicken or the egg??

In any case, the lack of existing dance critics creates a lack of competition between the critics - they own their own field, and can create their own qualifications and standards. is this okay? Not when the work being produced is mediocre. Dance flies under the radar as it is, but you would think that newspaper editors would be able to determine whether or not an individual is qualified to critique dance.

Should a dance critic have experience in the dance world? Absolutely. An individual needs to have been actively involved in a community in order to fully understand it and have the knowledge to pass judgement on it. Are all art critics great artists? No, but I'm sure art is their love and they have studied it, hold degrees in art history, and are active participants in the community.

In the first place, there are only 5 newspapers with full-time dance critics in the country. What does this say? Either this is a reflection on how important dance is to society, or it is a reflection on the great need that the art community has for dance critics. What came first, the chicken or the egg??

In any case, the lack of existing dance critics creates a lack of competition between the critics - they own their own field, and can create their own qualifications and standards. is this okay? Not when the work being produced is mediocre. Dance flies under the radar as it is, but you would think that newspaper editors would be able to determine whether or not an individual is qualified to critique dance.

Should a dance critic have experience in the dance world? Absolutely. An individual needs to have been actively involved in a community in order to fully understand it and have the knowledge to pass judgement on it. Are all art critics great artists? No, but I'm sure art is their love and they have studied it, hold degrees in art history, and are active participants in the community.

wow, it's really great to read this dialogue re: dance criticism and these varied viewpoints. many thanks for the comments on my letter--i've heard back from so many appreciative dc dancers that it's obvious that there's a lot of frustration, at least in this city, with local reviewers.

i love the discussion about how much a critic should know before reviewing, and it's a complicated thing to address. maybe being a good critic is like being a good artist of any sort: for most people, getting better is a long process of grueling practice and observation, but a few people have a unique perspective that sings out quite early on. i don't think critics need to be dancers or take dance classes, but they should be truly intrigued with and interested in dance--that is, they should be supporters of the art form itself, if not of the local community that's engaged in it. there are a few (very few) people who can step into a modern dance performance and quickly see what works and doesn't. most people will wind up loving the "prettiest" dances, the ones with arabesques and some attempt at conventional grace--like ms. ritzel did.

having a modern dance reviewer who doesn't know or love modern dance is like an art critic who writes off modern art as "something my kindergartner could do." of course that's not acceptable.

what's funny is that even the letters editor at the post had a problem understanding the distinction between "accessible" and "good" (he and i went back and forth a few times to clarify what i was trying to say at the end of the letter). maybe it's a problem w/ modern dance, modern art in general, that it often requires a fair amount of knowledge to comprehend what's being shown. but the reality is, that's the state of modern art right now. only a few pieces are so good that simply anyone can see that they are high quality.

by the way, i didn't include more info on what makes a good dancer simply b/c of space limitations, and it would've felt like a digression from what i really wanted to say.

I wholeheartedly agree that a dance critic for a publication should have substantial understanding and knowledge of the art form. As a reader, I expect the critic to support his/her opinion with sound reasoning and to educate me on the subject matter. I will take dance vocabulary and technical terms over vague “I am not feeling it, it is messy”-type statement any day.

I am rather surprised that whether or not a paid/professional critic should be knowledgeable in the subject under review is even in debate. There should be a difference between the qualities of opinion offered by professional critics, amateur aficionados, causal audience, and audience who are new to the subject.