Before you read my post you must read these two Dance critiques by NY Times writers Alastair Macaulay and Rosalyn Lucas. Justtt to make sure we're all on the same page;)
Webster defines criticism as:
The act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.
In the arts world, specifically of NYC, criticism can sometimes be a tough pill to swallow. Like I mentioned before, all serious dancers are carrying around this fragile little thing called an art baby (whether we know it or not) and when someone "judges" that...it can hurt.
And yet, it's a necessary evil.
While dance critique has been around for a long time I think its safe to say that my generation has become a witness to its current change. Alastair Macaulay has a history of raising hackles in the NY dance world and his most recent Complexions review (linked above) has helped to push dance criticism in a very different direction. Macaulay and Lucas have written "ballsy" reviews, telling it like it is without holding back. Its gutsy, sometimes hurtful, but you have to admit...it gets our attention.
While Macaulay is making some valid points his approach is a little to harsh for my liking. Using sharp, blunt sentences, and calling Mr. Rhoden's choreography "efficiently horrid" (within the first paragraph I might add!) was an unnecessary "judgment" of the quality as opposed to "analyzing and evaluating" the work like criticism is supposedly defined as doing. For me, Rosalyn Lucas' article was harsh yes, but not in a biting way. She seemed to truly be offering an outsiders perspective on the 51st season of AADTwhose rep, as a fact, has not caught up to the 21st century.
Dance criticism should consist of a fair and honest analyzation of choreography, evaluating of the dancers, and the overall quality of the individual show and sometimes company as a whole. But at the same time realizing that a lot of hard work, blood, sweat, and tears most likely went into the show being reviewed and despite the choreographer's mishaps or shortcomings, if the company's good, the dancers have worked their asses off to try and relay the vision the best they can and a dance critic should ALWAYS respect that.
There is constructive criticism, and there is the hurling of ego-driven insults. Calling a piece of choreography "efficiently horrid" belongs to the latter.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what you might think of the criticism surrounding the new Spiderman musical on Broadway. The show has taken a lot of heat, with papers like The NY Post reporting unfortunate mishaps during preview performances. Is this, in your opinion, fair? Aren't these in fact rehearsals? Or is the fact that this musical bears the title of Most Expensive Musical Ever enough to put it under an unfortunate pre-opening microscope?
Thanks for the links to the two reviews you wanted us to read.
ReplyDeleteIn a city where there are so many performances of good shows, I wonder why we are expected to have to read about such a bad one. Why not just do a capsule review of a show with such "efficiently horrid" choreography?
I found the ending of the aforementioned piece to be particularly rude: I should report that Mr. Richardson, who is also the company’s most celebrated dancer, was injured on Tuesday. As a result, Mr. Rhoden’s solo for him, “A Goldberg Variation” (2008), was replaced by “Spill” (2010), a duet danced by Christie Partelow and Mark Caserta; Since I detested Mr. Richardson’s performance of another Rhoden solo, “Lament,” in the “Kings of the Dance” season at City Center in February, it seems unlikely that his contribution would have improved my evening.
Question: If the critic so "detested" the last dancer's last performance, why even agree to review this new piece?