October 16, 2006

Does Art and Politics Mix?

I have trouble comprehending the occasional war of words over whether art - dance, in this case - should or should not be harnessed for making political statements.

A recent article from Guardian Unlimited, which highlights "Three Atmospheric Studies," an upcoming work by choreographer William Forsythe that explores the Iraq war, revives this debate over art and politics.

As John O'Mahony writes:

For dance purists, brought up on the abstract traditions of Balanchine and Merce Cunningham, the answer is simple: dance should remain unpolluted by politics. Perhaps the most infamous of all such critics is former New Yorker dance writer Arlene Croce, who was responsible for igniting one of the most vicious and long-running episodes in the US culture wars of the late 1980s and 1990s when she branded Jones's Still/Here as "victim art" in 1994 and refused to review it.

Then, O'Mahony quotes from a fax he received from Croce for his article. (Evil Imp, the blog from Article19, takes some pleasure in Croce's use of a fax machine: "Ms Croce suitably demonstrates her lack of connection with the modern world by sending her comments via fax! (ask your grandparents what that is!)":

Choreographers mix dance with politics because it is the only way to get attention. And get grants too, probably. The importance of a work is equated with the nobility of the sentiment it expresses. I've stopped attending dance attractions because the last thing I want to see is dancers wasting their time on some high-minded godawful piece of choreography. I don't want to be told about Iraq or Bush or Katrina by someone younger and dumber than I am.

Bill T. Jones has a simple, effective answer: "I can't believe she would say such a stupid thing..." Jones provides a more in-depth response in his latest blog post, "Political Work?"

From my perspective, this debate is not very meaningful. If an artist whishes to choreograph and perform works that address social and political topics, that's fine. If an artist wishes to keep dance "unpolluted by politics," that's also fine. Maybe my response is too simplistic, but for the life of me, I can't see what's wrong with either approach.

I just do not understand Croce. I understand her in terms of the types of dance that she would like to watch and review, but I don't understand how she makes the leap to dictating what types of works choreographers should make and what types of dances audiences should watch.

Why does she make such categorical statements about what is and what is not acceptable? If art is about freedom of expression and a desire to pursue one's own creative path, why impose restrictions? If artists wish to create works that encourage audiences to think about and discuss the important social, political and economic issues of our day, how can this diminish the value and importance of art?

Trackback Pings