20 years of telling stories not told elsewhere: Here’s a work I don’t ‘like.’ Which doesn’t mean it’s bad.

By Chris Dohse
Copyright 2005, 2018 Chris Dohse

(First published on October 14, 2005, this essay and Flash is re-published today with the support of Slippery Rock Dance . )

NEW YORK — I understand that there has been a debate on these pages recently about whether the quality of New York dance is declining.*

I’d like to toss out some thoughts about what I see as the rotten state of dance criticism among the mainstream publications in the city. Is it edifying to wonder which came first — the “bad” dance or the stale, moronic writing about same? Perhaps if the dozen or so minds who hold positions of power in the field, few of whom have ever made a dance or performed in one, could rise above their biases and narrow misconceptions and their narcissistic need for validation, we could stop mourning some past golden age.

I’ve perpetrated plenty of arrogant blab myself. (Search these DI archives.) I do so love the sound of my own voice. And every member of our community, no matter what their taste or status, complains that they dislike 60% or more of the work they see week after week. But at this point in my life, I don’t think the role of the critical community is to bite the hand that feeds it. Dance writers shouldn’t be barnacles clinging to a sinking ship or fat ticks sucking the life out of a dying carcass. We also shouldn’t be blind enthusiasts or cheerleaders. But I’d argue that a sane POV is one of general support for the medium and an intelligent respect for those insane enough to suffer a life creating it.

Yes, our role is to judge and evaluate, categorize and compare, but also to witness, to recognize. Not to gush and blow hot air up the fannies of certain cliques or to spot the next fad or declare a handful of personalities the brightest minds of our time simply because they fit neatly into some lineage of the canon.

In fact, throwing the canon out the window might be a healthy place to start so that we could actually see the dances that we see. In Molly Davies’s recent video installation at the Asia Society, a Japanese choreographer whose name I’ve forgotten called his work “post-historical.” He didn’t care if he was doing something that had been done before; he was following his own intuition and instincts. I like that term and hereby adopt it. (Somebody shoot me if I ever use the term “post-Judson” again.)

In the dominant/mainstream press, where I assume most dance audiences go for information about the scene, I primarily see reviews written from a position of self-congratulatory nostalgia, long-timers patting themselves on the back for having discovered the talent 20 years ago about whom they’re now cementing a hagiography without seeming to evaluate the current work for its authentic merits (or failures). These people often complain that they’re not seeing the next Tharp, the next Taylor, the next Morris (and what do they mean by that anyway?).

And we now seem to be enduring an immature, uninformed assault from certain writers who only seem to evaluate the most superficial veneer of the dances and dancers they’re watching. These writers judge dancers’ ability to point their feet, or the size of their waistlines, or their “prettiness” (based on whose model?). This isn’t criticism; it’s scorn.

Where are the writers who enter a work’s interior logic, appreciating its essential qualities and respecting its creator’s intentions and intelligence? These thinkers could herald a new age.

Time to put my money where my mouth is: Richard Daniels and his show at Danspace Project at St. Mark’s Church (seen September 29). Here’s a work that I don’t “like.” But that’s clearly because of my biases and preconceptions, not because the work is “bad.” Watching the two pieces on the program becomes a struggle for me, as I’m faced with style choices and tropes outside my tastes.

I chose this assignment, knowing that the movement vocabulary wasn’t my “beat,” but feeling that certain life circumstances I share with Daniels (living with HIV) would enrich my experience of his work. I don’t know him but friends of mine do. (This is the small pond of NYC dance after all.) I’m curious about the way Daniels claims in his press that “the experience of living with HIV disease led to a rebirth” and “propelled (him) to reconnect with dance as an instrument of his healing.” This sounds to me like something worth doing. The voices of long-term survivors seem to be swept under the rug today, even among the POZ brother- and sisterhood.

I trust Daniels’s intentions; I recognize them. He dances with confidence, a mature performer in solidly crafted work. The dancers believe in the material and perform it well. The choreography allows each dancer to emerge as a separate character and seems to showcase his or her unique energies.

But modern dance performed to piano, played live or recorded, makes me want to stick pins in my ears. A grand piano onstage calls forth one of the many chips on my shoulder, evoking upper class privilege or highbrow fussiness. This inner bias threatens to shut me down before the dance even begins.

The movement invention is what I like to call uptown modern, something that often looks like ballet in bare feet. The vocabulary seems to value extended line, buoyancy, “correct” execution of position and steps. I’d rather see bodies in repose or silence or floor-bound abjection; these are my tropes. Not bodies who fill the stage with doingness. I see a similar tensile quality to the styles of Zvi Gotheiner and Lar Lubovitch.

The first half of the program, “Telling Tales,” is a suite of two duets and two solos. The duets are choreographed by Scott Rink and Dusan Tynek, the solos by Daniels, who performs them. (Tynek and Regina Larkin join him for the duets.) Pianist Nurit Tilles accompanies all on that damn grand piano that swallows too much of the space. Daniels performs his solo material with strength and ease. A narrative quality sometimes unravels the shapes of his dancing into pantomime but this emphasizes his storytelling intention. He could be a Petruchka, left alone in his master’s solitary cell. His is a dignified presence of someone who has weathered the dark.

Perhaps an anthropology of the audience would help me parse the dance’s appeal? If it’s not my cup of tea, then the people here must be here because it is theirs. I don’t see anyone I recognize from the downtown dance crowd; I see few dancers. At intermission, I don’t hear anyone talking about the work, either with praise or disdain. Rather I hear two suburban couples discuss the trouble they’ve been having with their housekeepers and nannies (uh-oh, there’s my class bias again).

For “Apollo & the Muses” the piano has been moved to an upstage corner. This quintet is choreographed by Daniels, who doesn’t perform in it, to Stravinsky’s score. Tynek and Keith Sabado share the role of Apollo, the older man shadowed by his youthful self. Sabado fills his performance with gravitas; I can see a thinking presence and experience that initiates his dancing. Larkin, Megan Williams and Emmanuele Phuon play the first three muses. (Tynek morphs into the fourth.) The architectural detail of St. Mark’s Church is a perfect fit for this classical imagery as each character comes forward to contribute his or her part of the story.

What Daniels seems to have done in these two works is to create a sort of ornament that marks his place in the world. It has the elegant, timeless quality of a snow globe. He tells his story with clarity and courage. If I am to live up to my own standard of entering the present-time truth of the material, how can I be so arrogant as to say I don’t “like” it? Its signifiers simply aren’t mine. He succeeds in his goal; I just don’t get it.

Over the past few years, my disenchantment with being a dance writer in New York has twisted my knickers so severely, perhaps I’ve become unhinged. I stopped writing completely for an entire season (2003-2004), during which I didn’t even see a dance concert. If resisting something reifies the existence of that which is resisted, complaining about the state of things won’t improve the situation. We need new possibilities. For my own writing, I’m hoping to create a new model entirely, looking at the long haul, off the grid, under the radar, even though this form is the radar. I’d be sad to see the dominant voices of today’s New York dance critical community write the history of this generation of New York dance. If this happens, the truth will not be told.

*Write us at paulbenitzak@gmail.com for your own copies of the articles to which Chris is referring.

Advertisements

Building the dance audience: Rat-faced Bastards in the Kitchen with Michelson

By Chris Dohse
Copyright 2003, 2018 Chris Dohse

(First published on April 18, 2003.)

NEW YORK — So this is the next big thing. A scruffy, loud, spectacular stunt. A scrawny rat-faced bastard of a dance that you want to take home and give a bath. A sense of things happening all around you but from your partial view you mostly see fellow audience members rubbernecking. A mock profundity, a sense of having your leg pulled. The same bemused, somewhat embarrassed faces as in that much-reproduced 1960 photo of an audience at an Yves Klein live-action painting.

In Sarah Michelson’s “Shadowmann Part I” at the Kitchen, there’s a sense of fun and exuberant plenitude in the composition, like in the happenings of Kaprow et al., but there’s a dire humorlessness in the mien of the dancers.

Is this mimicry or redefinition? I can’t tell. I can’t identify a clear point of view. The music choices — ’70s ballad rock — don’t sound as funny to someone who lived through their heyday as they might to someone for whom they’re retro-chic.

The lack of a unified focal point becomes monotonous. I long to be able to enter the action, to walk around it, as one would have done at a party on the roof of the Bauhaus.

What is the actual danced vocabulary? Instantly, I can’t remember, even though it seems like maybe three phrases are being repeated to deadening extremity. Legs, steps, passe positions, one gesturing arm — mostly limply done, as if being marked. It’s the spatial ingenuity and flat, flat affect that I’ll remember.

A chorus of teenaged girls wears Dolce & Gabbana. The next day, looking through a copy of Rolling Stone in my ophthalmologist’s office, I see a D&G ad. One of the models in it wears the same skeevy half-grown-in beard, the same Flock of Seagulls bangs and the same self-absorbed sneer that Greg Zuccolo wears throughout the piece.

So is Michelson endorsing this sleaze or mocking it? Or is it all just a coincidence? Would it matter if I knew the answer?

After some obligatory lip-synching, I’m torn between embarrassment over the hollow experience I’m having and envy because I haven’t been offered a similar opportunity to wallow in alienating hauteur. Oh wait; maybe that’s what criticism is. I just can’t dig the idea that I spent $30 (I didn’t actually, but the masses did) to have my nose rubbed in how uncool I am. To have flaunted style remind me of in-group/out-group bias. But Henry Baumgartner, in his role as overseer, thrills me.

Ever since R. Mutt (a.k.a. Marcel Duchamp) placed a urinal in an art exhibition, the idea that anything is art/nothing isn’t art has been acknowledged and tinkered with to various levels of success. I guess I’d rather engage in some variation of this discourse than watch Law and Order reruns, even if it pisses me off. After making this distinction I grudgingly applaud the project’s audacity.

A slide is projected somewhat haphazardly on a side wall: a smiling woman against a background of flowers. It could be the choreographer’s mother or a found object. Either would be equally significant, equally inane.

“Shadowmann Part II” at PS 122 begins with gamin showgirl poses and whispered textbook German conversations, counted things. Why this layer of obfuscation? Only some of us will be able to understand the text. Why this pretense?

But I immediately warm to Part II’s smaller scale. Especially the ecru shag carpet that covers the floor. I see the phrase material and its repetitions not as dance so much as behavior. The teenaged trio is here again, now huddled in a corner, dressed in blue gauze. Last week they looked aloof; now they’re bored, with cherubic curls.

I could eat Paige Martin with a spoon. The flowers in the anonymous slide from Part I are reflected in the pattern of the floor-length curtains that hem two sides of the space. Greg’s beard is thankfully gone but his moustache has taken on Marlboro Man proportions. Behind my head, three video monitors transmit identical flat anonymous landscapes.

Michelson occasionally utters the word, “unglaublich.” Our awareness of us watching them becomes palpable, a third integer in an equation. The performers brazenly toy with their power; toy with being the object of what Schechner calls our “selective inattention.” When the curtains are pulled open to reveal 9th Street, the audience becomes part of the show on a different level, available for watching by passersby.

Again, I won’t remember the actual movement, only its framing devices. The bodies are static a lot, awaiting but not noticing each other’s activities as they arise and fall away. It’s a relief in some way to be freed from the falsehood of the “willing suspension of disbelief” of Aristotelian theater.

But just what is that pinched expression on Michelson’s face? What is she feeling? Contempt or despair?

Back to the Future: How to access stories on the Dance Insider & Arts Voyager

Returning to its roots as a Direct E-mail List — as the most effective, efficient way to serve our subscribers, writers, advertisers, and readers — the DI will heretofore make all new content, as well as reprints from our 20-year archive of more than 2,000 exclusive reviews by 150 writers of performances on five continents, plus news, commentary, art, and the Jill Johnston Archive, available strictly by e-mail. To subscribe to the DI and access both this new content and archived stories, for just $29.95/year individuals or $49.95 institutions, just designate your PayPal payment in that amount to paulbenitzak@gmail.com, or write us at that address to find out about payment by check or in Euros. (In the latter case, the payments will be directed to our European correspondents.) You can also contact us at that address to find out about limited, well-integrated e-mail advertising options.

20 years of Dance on Dance Insider: O Deborah — In Hay World with Durning, Greenberg, Gutierrez, Mapp & Schick

“What is the truth of the universe that fills your body and mind? Don’t tell me, show me.”     — John Daido Loori, “The True Dharma Eye”

“Inside the fortress of our skins we human beings have remarkable defenses against enemy intrusions, but we are not impregnable.” — John Money, “Reinterpreting the Unspeakable”

By Chris Dohse
Copyright 2006, 2018 Chris Dohse

Founded in 1998 by a collective of professional dance artists and journalists to build the dance audience, tell stories not told elsewhere, and give a voice to dancers, the DI is celebrating its 20th anniversary. See below for information on accessing our archive of 2,000 reviews of performances and art from around the world by 150 leading dance critics.

NEW YORK — So Deborah Hay’s “O, O,” January 26: in this version a showcase for five downtown dance veterans (Jeanine Durning, Neil Greenberg, Miguel Gutierrez, Juliette Mapp, and Vicky Schick). These bodies are as comfortable inside Danspace Project at St. Mark’s Church as five old socks in an old shoe. As we enter, cell phones trill, powering down; we’re not particularly paying attention and the dancers enter consecutively, taking the space to perform subtle gestures. They are immediately, and as it turns out, irrevocably, embodiments of a sort of politesse, a sort of Stoicism. They impassively ignore us, even though their gaze includes us, as if they’re well-trained figure models.

To receive the complete article, first published on February 17, 2006, subscribers please contact publisher Paul Ben-Itzak at paulbenitzak@gmail.com. Not a subscriber? Subscribe to the Dance Insider & Arts Voyager for just $29.95/year ($99 for institutions gets full access for all your teachers, students, dance company members, etc.) by designating your PayPal payment in that amount to paulbenitzak@gmail.com, or write us at that address to learn how to pay by check. Subscribers receive full access to the DI/AV Archive of 2,000 exclusive reviews by 150 leading critics of performances and art on five continents from 1998 through 2015. You can also purchase a complete copy of the Archives for just $49 (individuals) or $109 (institutions) Contact Paul at paulbenitzak@gmail.com. Sign up by April 20 and receive a FREE Home page photo ad.