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, 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 giving a voice to dancers: The Queen of Concept — Scheme Sabotages Style in Sarah Michelson’s “Daylight”

By Philip W. Sandstrom
Copyright 2005, 2018 Philip W. Sandstrom

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 this week by offering one-year subscriptions for just $20, including full access to our archive of 2,000 reviews of performances and art from around the world by 150 leading dance critics. Subscribe through PayPal by designating your payment to, or write us at that address to learn how to pay by check. The longtime technical director of Dance Theater Workshop, acclaimed lighting designer Philip W. Sandstrom is a DI senior critic.

NEW YORK — For her new “Daylight,” Sarah Michelson radically reconfigured PS 122’s second-floor theater, effectively dropping a new performance space into the midst of the old one. If you’ve performed in or observed performances at this space, you know the stage is bisected by two permanent columns; Michelson plopped the seating — three custom-seating risers — adjacent to and in between these fixtures. Then she painted everything — including the walls — white. The only exception to this snowy landscape was Claude Wampler’s four large portraits of the dancers, delineated, etch-a-sketch style, in a continuous thin black line on an all-white canvas. A phalanx of upright chrome theatrical lights, mounted on poles like speared heads, confronted the audience at the lip of the stage. A gentle haze thinly filled the air and the theater was bathed in natural blue-sky light pouring through a large exposed window on the south side of the auditorium.

To receive the complete article, first published on June 28, 2005, subscribers please contact publisher Paul Ben-Itzak at Not a subscriber? This week you can subscribe to the DI for one year at the discounted rate of $20. Just designate your PayPal payment in that amount to, 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.

Flash Flashback, 11-30: Blister Me — Michelson & Muz Raise the Stakes

By Susan Yung
Copyright 2000, 2016 Susan Yung

(Originally published April 10, 2000. Julie Atlas Muz performs with husband Mat Fraser — who she met while both were performing in the Coney Island Circus Side Show — in their company Oneofus’s production of Jeanne Marie Leprince de Beaumont’s “Beauty and the Beast,” December 1, 4, 8, 9, and 11 at Chicago’s Museum of Contemporary Art.)

NEW YORK — Sarah Michelson & Julie Atlas Muz fear nothing. To paraphrase the hot-button words they use to accompany “Blister Me,” neither the shallow nor the deep. They do not fear public scrutiny of their bodies; nor the failure of making perfect logic of an evening’s performance. Not getting right up into the audience’s face in a big primal scream, not even the smaller things, like slipping on a wet floor or landing from a fall onto a bare hipbone or spine. Nothing. The result is that “Blister Me,” their collaborative hour-long performance seen Friday at Dixon Place’s quirky theater at Vineyard 26, hits notes in every key and octave, high and low.

To get the rest of the article, subscribers can contact publisher Paul Ben-Itzak at Not a subscriber? Complete articles are $5 or three for $10. Subscribe to the Dance Insider for just $29.95/year ($119 for institutions gets full access for all your teachers, students, dance company members, etc.) and receive full access to our Dance Insider Archive of 2,000 exclusive reviews by 150 leading dance critics of performances on five continents from 1998 through 2015. You can also purchase a complete copy of the Archives for just $49 (individuals) or $129 (institutions) Purchase before December 15 and receive a second, free copy for the recipient of your choice — the perfect holiday gift. Contact Paul at .