October 19, 2006

Re-Connecting Bodies to Performances

I'm very perplexed about how dance writers and critics describe dance - especially dance performances.

How many times have you read a dance review where the author talked about how a performance inspired him or her to experiment with new types of movement? How many times have you read an article about a performance where the writer wondered what type of movement he or she would create if starting with the same question as the choreographer and dancers? I don't come across these types of articles. Reviews are never tied in such a direct way to the physical body.

Dancers, of course, get their inspiration from many sources - including performances - but the way that dance is explained and critiqued for public consumption is in a very removed, disembodied manner - ironic given that we're talking about dance. It's always about the meaning, aesthetics, forms, technique and other elements that are not directly tied to the writers own body or thoughts about moving their own body.

Nothing's obviously wrong with discussing these and other elements of a performance, but I think something has been lost over the past couple hundred years with the rise and excessive focus on professional-level performances, the rise of our mass-market consumer society and, over the past hundred years or so, on the power of mechanized and digital reproduction tools to recreate high levels of flawlessness.

The performing-arts going audiences have been taught to savor the role of passive spectators separated from performers by a raised stage. Dance critics have contributed to the separation and this passivity by writing about performances as isolated, discreet events that are not connected to the ideas, intentions, practice, experimentation and rehearsals of choreographers and dancers.

I've read a number of articles by dance critics who have said that they are 1) audience representatives and 2) are not interested in the intentions of the choreographer - in other words, they review a performance solely as they see it on stage - disconnected from the creative process. And they also interject themselves, in their own minds - between dancers and readers, which contributes even more to making dance a more intellectualized, unreachable art form that is not tied to the body.

Hopefully, the above makes some sense. What I'm getting at is that I'm not interested in art as a passive endeavor. I see no reason not to be connected to or be part of performances in some manner. I see no reason for a dance performance to be a discreet, free-standing event that is disconnected from the process that created the work, and ignores the ideas, experimentations and inspirations of those that created it.

Performing arts is sort of where magic shows were before Penn and Teller: The secrets behind the tricks were kept hidden. So audiences could only be awed by the sleights of hand without knowing how these feats were devised. Far from a perfect analogy. But if you compare the performing arts with the rise of the participatory Internet, this comparison might make more sense.

The Internet, especially what we now think of as web 2.0, is about authentic sharing and collaboration - at least in theory. One of the characteristics that often goes by the wayside is the concept of perfection, which becomes less of an ideal when the focus is on speed and real-time communications. With performing arts, there is, I think, an overwhelming motivation for artists to only show their works in a perfected state and to eradicate lingering blemishes. This focus on perfection dissuades many artists from providing audiences with access to the creative process. There are many examples that would disprove my point, but, as a general rule, I don't think most performing artists want their works to be seen in the in-progress state. A couple months ago, in Chicago, there was a huge battle because a theater critic wrote a negative review of shows that were in the development stage. One person connected to this showcase of new works complained that the playwrights needed space to develop and showcase their developing works free from the criticisms of newspaper critics. (I have to find this story.)

My premise is that our culture values the perfected art work at the expense of candid and productive conversation about works in progress. If performing artists - and other artists, for that matter, embraced more of a web 2.0 mindset and were open to receiving feedback throughout the entire creative process, I think there would be some great on-going dialogue that would contribute to how works evolved before actual performances.

I think where I'm going is to that the Internet creates the opportunity for re-connections to be made. That critics and writers can share their insights and reactions without coming between performers and audiences. That raised stages don't need to impose a physical and psychological barrier between performers and audiences. That an excessive focus on perfection does not have to prohibit collaborative conversations and feedback between artists and audiences throughout the creative process. That performances, especially dance, don't have to be enjoyed only on an intellectual and emotional basis disconnected from our bodies and the physicality of movement.

And this post is an excellent case in point of the blogging mindset. It is in desperate need of some time-consuming editing. But maybe something would be lost if I tried to be more coherent as I have my second cup of coffee on a Thursday morning??

Trackback Pings