Performing Arts

64 Comments

1. General response: I love the Walker Art Center’s Choreographer’s Evening. it is a great tradition. Thank you Performing Arts and Emily. Last night’s show was a very well run show. It is great to see what dancemakers in the twin cities are working on.

   Response to the the omission of Jaime Carrera’s piece in the 7:00PM show:
   Questions: 1.Why was the 7PM Choreographer’s Eve. considered a family show?
   2.How does the naked body represented in the walker Art Center galleries, relate to the body on the McGuire stage? There seems to be a disconnect.I look to the Walker to lead in presenting contemporary art and work in the galleries and on the stage. 3.Are local artist being denied artistic freedom?

   Comment by Laurie Van Wieren — 11/25/2007 @ 12:31 pm

2. Kaleena and Ricci’s tap dancing was best of show; they definitely won the crowd’s applause-o-meter. And most of that tap was not choreographed - that was improv at its best. Bravo!

   Also loved the jingle dancers - especially the child who was learning on stage - and the African American dancers - real dancing with lots of positive energy and in-the-pocket rhythm.

   Comment by Vaughn Asselstine — 11/25/2007 @ 2:20 pm

3. I really appreicated the fine details of Emily Johnson’s curation this year. I liked the way that the theater portion of the show opened with Olive Bieringa’s ‘jumping’ dance, and ended with Cara Krippner’s piece which also featured a short jumping section. The two jumping bookends provided a comforting sense of cohesiveness to what could have seemed varied show.

   I was also struck by the fact that a number of the dancers appeared in the works of multiple choreographers. I think normally I would find this frustrating— that Minneapolis has such a huge number of dancers, and yet the same people kept popping up in numerous dances– but last night I found it refreshing. The group of dancers became an enemble cast, and seeing familiar faces and bodies on the stage created a wonderful sense of community in which we as audience members were included.

   Comment by Max Wirsing — 11/25/2007 @ 3:42 pm

4. We have attended this event at least 9 times. We are prepared to like some, accept a few, hate one and love several, that's why we come back.

   1st Jumping boredom - if there were over 70 try outs, the others must have been really bad! Not dance, no funny, not needed.

   Best Swan Story - funny, unexpected, real dance and entertaining.

   Surprise Bikers and Bikinis - coarse but not gross. Laughed really hard and saw talent too.

   Worst Eggs lady - should have given them to audience to throw.

   Also overran FBI Maam - repetitive, pointless and showed little talent or dance.

   Most unnecessary 30's B movie Dahomey tribe scene - didn't like it then and don't like it now. There must be another ethnic dance troupe that doesn’t like stereotyping.

   Jiggle Dress - good mix and talent plus non waspish.

   In general, liked this year less than most.

   Comment by Jim & Sue O’Toole — 11/25/2007 @ 4:12 pm

5. It is interersting how different people view the same event.

   I found the “egg lady” (those were actually lemons on stage) to be very interesting and innovative. The scene was visually pleasing with the lemons reflecting the lights, and the green bottles and white papers making bursts of color. The piece was thought provoking as the viewer wondered about the dancer cautiously making her way through the lemons, only to be distracted by the “bling” of her shiny baubles. A commentary on class, and superficiality.

   It is nice to see something different and unexpected. I agree that the Swan ballet piece was also refreshingly different. Let’s see more of the innovative, and less of the folk dancing that always seems to be the same.

   Comment by Karen Ruddeforth — 11/25/2007 @ 5:15 pm

6. First I would like to thank Emily for taking on this event and doing a wonderful job. It had to be both challenging and rewarding to piece together a diverse group of talent for the Walker Art Center. I have to say that they were not all works that I would have sought out. Several of the pieces that I experienced last night I would have never seen had it not been for this curatorial. Thank you.

   Art is relative to the person viewing it. Hate it or love it, but please continue to experience it. I personally disagree with comments that inevitably claw at the very heart of the art itself. “Real” dance experiences or “real” art is the giving of the artist and the receiving by the viewer. I welcomed each piece into my space and would like to thank all those choreographers involved for allowing me to see such an intimate side of themselves and their work. I gave you all of my attention and my entire open mind because what you were offering me was so much more.

   Every one of you involved should be very proud. You are all staying true to yourselves.

   Comment by Tiffany Lundell — 11/25/2007 @ 5:51 pm

7. Re: Laurie’s questions above:
   1. Having a family that includes small children I am always piqued by the idea of a “family show.” To me it just means providing for a suitable bed time. After all, my kids love to take off their clothes all the time so it couldn’t mean anything about nudity…could it?
   2. What makes a “performed” naked body different than a painted/sculpted naked body is its own topic, but I think the argument can be made that the painting of nudes has a history of prurience (or sublimated prurience) from which the body on the McGuire was a departure, comment or a tangent.
   3. Yes, of course, and it drives me nuts. Not only because this relatively innocuous incident was a specific deprivation for an audience and the artist, but because this incident is a symptom of a mentality, or a logic, that is “police-like” — determining what is visible in order to maintain the status quo of its own hegemony. The Walker does seem to lead in this community when it comes to presenting “contemporary work,” but what belongs to this category is clearly embedded in other questions, including those of the institution’s presence, power and prestige. In short, there is too much money at stake to talk about artistic freedom. This is not the place to look.

   Re: the comments by the O’Tooles and T Lundell above:
   I feel that art is not relative in the sense Ms Lundell describes. I believe feeling that something is not real dance is a perfectly valid and welcome reaction. Although I may disagree with some of the O’Toole’s opinions, I find the implication more unpleasant that an attack on the “heart of the art” is somehow untrue, closed-minded, or ungrateful. Speaking as an artist, I know there are many who find my work obtuse, boring, bad, or not real. I have found however that most responses generally tend to be couched in polite and/or empty words that I find demeaning to me, my work, and the speaker. There is no honesty without antagonism. There is no life without pain.

   Re: Choreographers’ Evening:
   As much as I enjoyed the entire evening, I am going to focus a little on Ms Shogren’s work. In my view she embodies something that is present elsewhere but nowhere so intently and so distilled. She plays all sides against the middle and the middle against the rest, she’ everywhere at once. She lines them up and takes them down cause she’s the boss and the flunky both. She throws everything up in the air and as they hang there, she plucks them down one by one and slips each into her pocket where they disappear. Simultaneously winking and innocent, there’s nothing up her sleeve. As if she were a human sample machine. But these descriptions are too limiting. Of course these juxtapositions of form, content, style, mode and function can be hilarious and disarming, but she is doing something purposeful, bigger, freer, easier, more impossible and more important. Her work escapes and denies rationalization (and any mode of police logic) in order to claim its own place as an autonomous entity: proclaiming, demonstrating, and enacting freedom in its practice.

   Comment by Charles Campbell — 11/25/2007 @ 10:19 pm

8. Responses to the questions about the omission of Jaime Carrera’s dance in the 7pm show.

   No surprises here.
   I curated this dance into the show. I obviously wanted it to be performed in both shows. I am glad Jaime performed in the second show, and though I was surprised, I was glad I was handed a small white, card by performance artist - Anita Barr - listing the three questions about nudity at the Walker and in Choreographer’s Evening. Jaime and I received alot of support from people during the whole “nude drama” as I will now, fondly refer to it as…this card, and every corresponding discussion I heard in the audience and now, online are testaments to art and art making.

   What makes me sad about this whole thing is that Jaime made a really great dance. When I first saw it, I was struck with millions and millions of jabs of meaning surrounding identity, sexuality, beauty, commodity, acceptance, pride, and fear. Unfortunately, audiences in the first show didn’t get to have any kind of experience with his piece. And, all the “nude drama” detracted from the plain fact that he had to prepare and perform. I wouldn’t want any “nude drama” pressure if I were to perform in front of a packed house….

   Really, it is a mystery to me as to why Jamie was not able to perform in the first show. Precedent. Family show. Community Event. Police mind (as Charles Campbell so eloquently wrote). None of it makes sense to me and it all seems very silly. Except, I know, censorship is never silly.

   All in all, I am proud of the way I, Jaime, Michele, and ‘the Walker’ handled it. I think, perhaps, it might, possibly, maybe, just per chance open a door to a broader range of dance works ‘allowed’ in Choreographer’s Evening.

   Here are responses to the individual questions:
   1. “family show”
   Here’s the funny thing….since alot of performers have access and know that really, the best show for kids to go to is a dress rehearsal, alot of kids were at dress rehearsal. I don’t know, 8 or 9 at least. Jaime did his piece. I don’t think any kids even noticed nudity. We all know adults are the weirded out ones.

   2. “sculpture vs human flesh”
   Maybe because a swinging penis or bouncing breasts are more “real” than a sculpture or painting of a penis or of breasts that obviously, can’t move. (Movement obviously instigates pruriency). Very Duchamp…shall we put a nude painting and a nude body side by side and begin testing them to see which is “real”?

   3. “local, artistic freedom”
   I think this question gets boggled up with the whole “institution/local programming or perceived lack thereof” issue that rears it’s head every once and a while. I’m paraphrasing and speaking quite generally when I say people who live here want the Walker to bring in great performances from around the world and we also want the Walker to program us. When there is a slight in the balance of what is very nebulously deemed as “fair” all kinds of alarms go off and people note either a lack of local programming, or a feeling that the local programming offers scraps to a pack of hungry dogs (no, I’m not saying we are like a pack of hungry dogs…)
   Yes there was lots of nudity in “Dorky Park.” Yet, Jaime couldn’t perform nude at 7pm last night. However, I hear there was nudity in Mathew Janczweski’s show recently. He’s local, so there’s no obvious “rule” about denying local artists the freedom to go nude…
   Maybe the issue is somehow about how the dance (ohhh, I’m going to say it, even though I really think this is an ill defined word) community (there, I said it: dance community) regards itself. Choreographers’ Evening is seen as a kind of “community event.” Maybe the Walker thinks that this “dance community” either doesn’t like, won’t stand for, or is too, I don’t know - nice? for nudity. I’m guessing. I really have no “insider” information. I know the people at the Walker enjoy programming great work and I know they work hard, and I know they have alot of people to please (audiences, funders, doners..) That’s really all I know. I guess that makes me think that question #1 is vital: Why, ever would Choreographers’ Evening ever even be considered a “family show” and be perceived as not being able to program a nude piece? (Let’s put the whole question of why nudity isn’t allowed at a ‘family show’ aside for the moment). I’m questioning “us.” Is there something in the history? Is there a strong precedent against nudity? Is there someway this “community” is looked at that “we” don’t know? Are “we” seen as old fashioned, MN nice, hicktown, blah blah blah, etc.etc. etc.????? No really. I wonder. (I don’t think we are, mind you….but we all know how difficult it is to have perspective when you’re in it……)

   Comment by Emily Johnson — 11/26/2007 @ 1:38 am

9. POST-RE-VIEW : Incandescent and Sole Revival
   ————
   OLIVE BIERINGA/BODY CARTOGRAPHY PROJECT : Incandescent
   Breathtaking. Stunning.
   Not words of judgment, but action.
   ie: My breath was taken away. I was stunned.

   The brilliance of it is, of course, its simplicity.

   Get a group unified in one simple action and watch.

   This could be our world - simplicity.
   We need to sleep, we need to eat.

   But we fuck it up don’t we?
   Capitalism. Economics.
   Words of power and misappropriate entitlement.

   Boredom.
   A sad word because it only means you did not watch closely.
   And you probably never go hungry, do you?
   ———–

   KALEENA MILLER AND RICCI MILAN: Sole Revival
   How often do Kaleena and Ricci dance together? I heard her say once,
   “when we practice in my driveway….” This brings to mind an image of
   them dancing every day, all day. Dancing as they cook their eggs,
   dancing down a hallway on the way to a computer to check email…
   In my mind the scene continues in an amazingly fantastic and grotesque
   adaptation of film, rhythm, and movement, though I’m sure their lives
   aren’t actually like this….

   Pleasing to hear and confounding to watch; how do they move so fast?
   how are her feet not sliding out from under her as she slaps them out,
   laterally, way past the plum line of her hips? how in the hell does he
   swing his low leg around in such a perfect circle while just ever so
   slightly grazing the tip of his toes on the floor? This is virtuosity
   and normally I am not a fan of virtuosity. I mean, sure, I enjoy the
   occasional dive through a flaming hoop, but wow me to wow me over and
   over and over and I usually don’t get wowed. Except Ricci and Kaleena
   are virtuosic in a way that makes me think that if I just hung out
   with them long enough, maybe if we cooked some eggs together or
   something, I could tap like that. I don’t know how they manage it. It
   can’t be explained except, in the dance that is Ricci and Kaleena I find myself resting on
   Kaleena’s deep seated stance of irony. She’s in the dance and she’s
   making the dance more than what they are dancing by serving Ricci’s
   staunch “I got this” with “Yeah, of course you do, but that’s not
   really enough.” I’m not saying she challenges him, rather, she knows
   they are virtuosic to the point of magic and she knows virtuosity died
   with the World’s Fair. She tells us this with her eyebrows, with the
   tiny shakes of her head, with the way she pulls from holding steady
   into something completely else - something so damn virtuosic you want
   to pee. We see a duet of crazy-ass-good tap dancing with charisma
   pouring out every pore, but she also makes them lovable. She makes me
   believe they could fly right off the stage; she makes me love their particular virtuosity.

   Comment by Emily Johnson — 11/26/2007 @ 1:57 am

10. For the past 20 years I’ve enjoyed Choreographer’s Evening as a performer, choreographer and audience member. I appreciate the brevity of the works, and I value the breadth of styles I often see onstage. I don’t expect to be fond of every piece, but that’s the beauty of this event; if I don’t like something it’s over quickly, and it provides me with an opportunity to examine the specifics of my preferences.

    Regarding the issue of nudity in and around this show: I attended the 7pm show and therefore didn’t get to see whatever was so controversial. I’m really disappointed by that. We’re talking about censorship here. I pay my annual Walker membership fee and hope to have my sensiblities challenged in return. I take full responsibility for my viewing choices; I personally don’t want the Walker or any other presenter to decide what is appropriate for me or my family to witness. I find the notion of a “family show” ridiculous and when I really think about it, downright frightening.

    I don’t think children are freaked out and/or scarred by nudity in contemporary art. But sadly, I think that providing children the chance to observe and have their questions answered has been replaced by something institutional and insipid (Hello, Disney) that’s masquerading as “family friendly”. This is tragic. Don’t people want to think for themselves anymore? Don’t we want our curious, questioning children to evolve into curious, questioning adults?

    And while I’m posing questions: 78 auditions? Yowza! There’s clearly a screaming need for more of these. Remember when there were 4 Choreographer’s Evenings per year? Could we not work towards hosting it at least twice a year? This would provide more curatorial experience as well as performance opportunities (complete with the Walker’s killer publicity) for a thriving, hungry community.

    Comment by Megan Mayer — 11/26/2007 @ 2:34 pm

11. Oh, my. With three exceptions, maybe four, the creations emanating from this year’s Choreographers Evening belonged on a therapist’s couch instead of the Walker’s stage. The O’Toole’s commented, above, that “In general, liked this year less than most.” For me and my companion, we liked this year least of all. Very little originality. Very little technical proficiency, however defined. If anyone had anything to say, choreographically, it didn’t need saying.

    Then, there was the “nudity controversy” (just how many people were truly involved in this dust-up?), about which Emily Johnson wrote, above: “Really, it is a mystery to me as to why Jamie was not able to perform in the first show. Precedent. Family show. Community Event. Police mind (as Charles Campbell so eloquently wrote). None of it makes sense to me and it all seems very silly. Except, I know, censorship is never silly. All in all, I am proud of the way I, Jaime, Michele, and 'the Walker' handled it.”

    Emily, you can’t possibly expect anyone to think you are so naive. Does no one accept responsibility for this? Clearly, if Carrera’s work was not permitted on the 7pm program, someone, somewhere, made the decision to prevent it. You were the curator — did you not know who made the decision? What are you saying when you state that you are proud of the way it was handled?

    Looking forward to next year.

    Comment by Gary Peterson — 11/26/2007 @ 8:27 pm

12. Regarding nudity and family shows:
    I did not know anything about the nudity issue until the day of the show, and I was in the show. By then it was too late to rig my vinyl tutu to pop open and make up for the omission of Jaime Carrera’s piece in the 7pm show.
    I would think seeing someone spewing blood, flipping the middle finger, drinking beer,mime-ing crude sex, and hearing “Jesus Christ , woman!” was way more harmful to kids than Jaime’s simple, straightforward nudity.

    Checkout Disney’s “Fantasia”– the part with nymphs and and half horse men, especially, but throughout: You will see voluptuous NUDE bodies. (In fact, I can’t think of one Disney movie that doesn’t feature a scantily-clothed bodacious princess or well-packaged hunk of a man not far away. Maybe “Pinocchio”). It’s harmless, children simply don’t process it like adults. I’m sure it provided the cartoonists a lot of pleasure. That Walt, what a slave-driver.

    Comment by Sally Rousse — 11/26/2007 @ 11:37 pm

13. I will start off by saying regardless if you liked WCE or not, the curator is to be commended for her willingness to do the job, which can be very difficult.

    To me this year’s WCE was a reflection of Johnson’s own dance genre. Whether intentional or not, the majority of the pieces were modern/postmodern-like dance theater. Regardless if the majority of the pieces were tap, modern, hip-hop, etc. they would tend to blend together afterwhile-epecially if WCE is supposed to be representing a diverse range of dance in Minnesota.

    This is not to say that the modern/postmodern type work presented this year was not excellent, but I am looking forward to a more diverse WCE next year.

    In addition, I am challenging the Walker to begin to choose curators who do not have ‘traditional’ dance backgrounds(i.e. modern, ballet, jazz).

    A bit of diversity to include more people of color and/or ‘non-traditional’ dance genres into the curators pool would be welcomed. I am not sure if this has been done in the past, but a revisit to include those discussed above could not hurt.

    Comment by Alanna V. — 11/27/2007 @ 3:09 pm

14. Wow. This was my first foray into WCE, and I have to say this is all very interesting. I was the choreographer of the Jingle dress dance piece. I was in a dance ensemble 100 years ago in college, so it was great to be among such positive, creative people. I have nothing but good things to say about Emily Johnsons’ hard work and attempts at inclusion of diverse dance works. Along those lines - I am puzzled by the comment earlier about the 1930s B movie Dahomey tribal dance.??? Sounds like a slam. Yet, art is art, out there for all to love and criticize, that’s the great thing. I’m glad there was nudity in the show. It gave me, as the mother of an 11 year old girl who performed in the show, a chance to allow her to see nudity in an artistic context (bad art, good art, who gets to say? we all do). I think it is important to encourage children to see the naked body in a non sexual way. This is not easy, given how our society sexualizes everything. I think it would have been fine to have Jaime’s piece in both shows. I would have been interested to hear the reaction of my 70 year old parents, who were at the 7 pm show and so did not see it.

    Comment by Terri Yellowhammer — 11/28/2007 @ 8:53 am

15. So who did make the decision about Jaime’s 7pm show? Where did the buck stop?

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 11/28/2007 @ 9:49 am

16. has anyone noticed the questions at the very top of this page? Emily asked people to do a “post-reveiew” based on their recollections of the show with some simple, specific questions she asked. Between the Jaime controversy and various slams and defenses, no one seems to be actually engaging in the simple exercise emily requested. I’m personally very interested in this exercise, in seeing what participating in this will do to my own sense of the show, how it might deepen my experience and its resonance in my life, which I believe is the intention of the curator - to deepen the experience and make it more meaningful to me in my life.

    What do you remember?

    I remember how much i enjoyed the “scavenger hunt” aspect of the show - having to go from the lobby to the parking garage, then the bar, and then the theater to see the pre-show performances. I feel like it set a tone of exploring and adventure and discovery - being surprised and opened to new things. I couldn’t help but experience this show in the context of having just seen the Jerome Bel + Pichet Klunchon performance at the Walker last week - specifically, their discourses on traditional vs. “contemporary” art, and the reasons they make the work that they make. Particularly, Bel’s definition of “contemporary” art has completely informed the way i view and experience it. Bel said that by definition, “contemporary” refers to the present - right now - and for him that means creating something completely new, which is almost impossible to do well, which is why he said 90% of contemporary art is “very bad”. It is an exploration of new territory, with the artist and audience joined on this journey into the unknown. Both artist and audience wade through mostly muck in hopes of discovering a radiant jewel that, because it is truly new and purely of the moment (could have never happened earlier in human history/consciousness) - is exhilarating in its articulation and expression of what it means to be human at this exact moment. (This way of experiencing art is very different from the commodity model that is often mis-applied: “I pay my money for a product, I expect to get a particular product in return. I have an expectation of the art form based on what has happened in the past. I want the artist to re-do something that worked in the past. “) So in that context, I realize that in attending an event at a contemporary art institution such as The Walker, I am simply on a journey, panning for gold like everyone else, hoping to find something new in myself and my view of the world, by seeing new explorations . In addition, I know that the Choreographer’s Evening is meant as a showcase for the local dancemaking community, so I was excited to see a wider variety of work than i ever would otherwise. So for me, the varied pre-show performances in odd spaces perfectly set the tone. So, back to the question:

    What do I remember?

    - the drama of the curtain opening on all that jumping - the varied reactions of the audience - and imagining what the instructions were for the performers. I watched the different bodies react in different ways. I noticed how different outfits reacted in different ways. I loved that it felt like a science experiment, with audience as much a subject as the performers. Theater as laboratory.

    - I remember the green cadillac in the parking garage, covered with ham and turkey.

    - I remember the huge, positive, happy energy radiating from the stage during Kenna Sarge’s piece. They seemed to be so revelling in this movement - it made me wonder if joy and celebration was an important aspect of the orignial traditional form that Kenna was drawing from. I commented to my companion that they must have had fun rehearsing - it sure felt like it.

    - i remember the intricate hand gestures of the last piece, and how i loved that.

    What surprised you?

    Even though i knew about the nude controversy ahead of time, and knew the premise of Jaime’s piece, I was still uncomfortable and struggled with it - and that surprised me. But I was so grateful to have had that experience - of being uncomfortable, nervous, questioning. I wanted to look away. why? part of my nervousness was for Jaime, being so exposed, so daring, and part of it was being nervous for the audience - wondering how they were taking it. I was also so surprised when the ballerinas all came out for sally’s piece - such an awesome over-the-top shift in energy. I was surprised when everyone came out to grab the lemons.

    Did you laugh?

    I laughed a great deal. I smiled almost the whole show. I was doubled over for most of Mad King Thomas, even though I’d seen the piece at the BLB a month earlier. I also loved seeing sally go so dark and messy. I liked watching susan & dylan do an almost marx brothers type FBI routine: “m’aam B.I.”

    Did you cry?

    I was really moved by the way the show ended - the entire cast picking up lemons - the beauty of a community of artists literally working together - picking up lemons, cleaning up the stage. And that moved into the final piece with perfect music by sigur ros, which felt like a perfect bookend with the jumping from the first piece and the white outfits of Sally’s piece and the minimalist hand gestures coupled with broad running circles…I didn’t cry, but was very moved. I’m not sure I would have been without that music, though. I think i might have teared up a little when the youngeest fancy dancer ran off front stage left just as the lights dimmed. it couldn’t have been a more perfectly choreographed ending, for me.

    Did your mind wander?

    my mind only wandered a couple times, and I’ve come to realize that this means i’m bored or distracted. And distractions are almost always my mind’s own defense mechanism for feeling uncomfortable. once was during the FBI monologue - i got lost with the big words - and during the tap dancing - similar to when my mind wanders during a technically brillliant guitar solo - I didn’t find any meaning in the exposition.

    I’m grateful for the show and all the hard work that went into each piece, as well as putting the whole thing together in a cohesive whole. I thought it was a magnificent show, with a very measured sequence and thoughtful attention to pacing and detail. It was my favorite CE I’ve seen by far, but I’ve only seen a few.

    Comment by James Everest — 11/28/2007 @ 1:09 pm

17. This was my first year attending the Choreographers' Evening and i have to say, i was VERY dissapointed. While I believe there is a time and place for everything, most of what I saw this night (in my opinion) did not belong on stage at the Walker. I went expecting to see amazing choreography. The choreographers had a stage at the WALKER and almost a sold out crowd, this was such a great opportunity to show what they are capable of, instead I saw one performance of people jumping in place, a naked guy swaying his wig back and forth and an egg lady with no direction. None of these performances had more choreography than I would expect to see at a grade school performance. I left that night wondering what Emily Johnson did not allow in the show! A range of styles should not mandate a range of quality.

    There were some performaces worth seeeing. The tap dancers, The Native american dance (with 3 generations) and an african style dance comes to mind immediately. Kudos to them for getting out there, actually Choreographing something and performing it with gusto.

    As for the other pieces i mentioned above, I am truly saddened to think that this was the best choreography they had to show at the walker.

    Comment by Eric Fetrow — 11/28/2007 @ 2:47 pm

18. Okay, I’ll answer the questions. Having finished my review (look for it next Monday on mnartists.org), I feel free to join the conversation.

    What do I remember?
    A lot. It would take a long time to answer this question. Briefly, though, a few visual images stand out: Joanna among her lemons, Jessica with her cigarette holder, both so specific. Monica Thomas in her gold bikini modestly reading Keats.

    What surprised you?
    Anna Marie Shogren’s invisibility on the big stage. I’ve never seen her so unprepossessing. I don’t think she was served well by being pre-show; her work needs that inherent awkwardness of theater.
    I wouldn’t say Mad King Thomas surprised me, I knew they were crazy, but my god.

    Did you laugh?
    Uh-huh. Giggles during “Incandescent,” I loved the really bone-shuddering jumping of the man on the end. MKT slayed me. I laughed when Sally bit it on her jump, then felt bad. Laughed when everyone came out to get the lemons, but that was different–delight-laughter. That was my favorite moment–everyone collecting those lemons together.

    Did you cry?
    Uh-uh. I do cry sometimes, either for some big emotional thing (Off-Leash Area has a knack for this) or for the sublime. I didn’t see any sublime achieved here. Kaleena Miller has got me close to crying before, but it didn’t happen at CE.

    Did your mind wander?
    God–doesn’t everybody’s? Mine goes all over the place, almost constantly. I had more rapt attention for Joanna and MKT and was at my most distracted during the tap and Chris Schlicting and Cara Krippner’s pieces. I don’t think distraction necessarily means unsuccessful work, though. Some of it’s just me, and then there are some artworks that almost encourage that sort of wandering, as if part of their artistic operation were to give you space to dream. Some poetry puts me instantly to sleep. I remember having pocket dreams all through a certain Japanese film.

    Comment by Lightsey Darst — 11/28/2007 @ 2:49 pm

19. I’m curious about Ms Darst’s experience of Anna Marie Shogren’s invisibility on the big stage. I could only see it from the wings (and at the dress rehearsal when I saw it from the third row) so maybe it was different for me. But I found her unprepossession (?) recognizable and intensely pointed. Because I am so taken with Ms Shogren’s work I will expand: I felt that it was part of her rigorously autonomous performance: a conscious inversion of the presentational theatricality usually so prevalent in so many forms of performance that it becomes assumed as natural, indigenous, and inevitable. For me this inversion was ideal for the McGuire stage at the Walker: an 18th-Century auditorium presenting the work of local choreographers (in part) as consumable product in the marketplace of “contemporary art” (see Jerome Bel + Pichet Klunchon). Especially the moment when she (+1) left the lighted area of the stage to stand directly in front of the first row audience and rocked her body violently back and forth, simultaneously a comment on the sexualized and the pathological body — two types of body presented for consumption (by paying audience or a medical intervention).
    She took control of what mattered: her body, her dance, the space, her capacity for movement as thought — but all the while denying us the voyeuristic pleasures inherent in the ideologies of the structured space.

    And, for the record:
    What do you remember? nothing
    What surprised you? everything
    Did you laugh? Did you cry? yes
    Did your mind wander? yes

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 11/28/2007 @ 3:39 pm

20. Mm. I basically agree with what you’re saying about her work, only I think Shogren needs the audience to be actually looking at her. That sounds ridiculous. What I mean is this. She takes the performer/audience contract and screws with it. But in the preshow situation no such contract exists. Ergo, nothing to screw with.

    Comment by Lightsey Darst — 11/28/2007 @ 4:50 pm

21. I see your point, Ms Darst. Because no one is really watching it doesn’t really work. That does make it impossible to assert that this screwdriving tactic is universal, but also there are always those who look but do not see, hear but do not listen, etc. even in the most well-lighted place. The contract is flexible — or at least there is a lot of fine print. Aeschylus, on this:

    Plus I think her stuff is absolutely hilarious.

    Another sideline about the contract thing is what happens to it given the bleeding of the performance out of the McGuire into the other spaces.

    Thanks for the conversation.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 11/28/2007 @ 6:00 pm

22. Dangnabit, lost my Aeschylus. I try again:

    “I willingly speak to those who know, but for those who do not know I forget.”

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 11/28/2007 @ 10:24 pm

23. Where was the dance? I’ve attended at least ten CEs over the years, 2007 was a disappointment. Ricci & Kaleena were wonderful. Some pieces were amusing. Jaime’s work was compelling and powerful, but was it choreographed dance? I just don’t think CE was the right venue. I usually find several pieces memorable, but not this year. It’s sad to think the amazing local talent that was deprived a wonderful showcase.
    Howard

    Comment by Howard — 11/29/2007 @ 3:04 am

24. oh dear.
    howard? where was the dance?!? what IS dance? for me, i’ve come to see dance as movement, physical movement of the body. Choreography is when that movement is intentional, with meaning - directions given and performed. The intention is the meaning. That intention could be to make the audience uncomfortable. It could be to make the audience aware of themselves as individuals, aware of their expectations, aware of their prejudices. It could be to make them laugh or cry. My favorite pieces usually do all of the above. Every piece at CE, (including jaime’s) had intentional, meaningful movement in it. If every piece had come from the same intention as the tap piece, i would have been bored out of my skull like many past CE’s. The beauty of this showcase is that the intentions behind the movement were so varied, there was so much depth. Each piece touched on a different way to make dance. Each piece affected me in a different way, on a different level. I believe that was part of the point of this curation - to show the WHOLE spectrum of what dancemakers consider to be “dance” in 2007 Minnesota. To show a wide spectrum of the many possible intentions and approaches and interpretations of what is “dance”. I attended CE very excited to find out about what new directions the artform of dance was going in my home state. Again, this is a CONTEMPORARY ART venue, showcasing CONTEMPORARY DANCE - why would such a showcase show something from last year? or something entirely from the past? There is plenty of “old” dance out there that is NOT labelled “contemporary” and you can easily find it. It is easily packaged, marketed, and consumed: Expectations met. Emily is a contemporary dance choreographer. She is interested in making and finding NEW work, in taking chances. There was so much amazing local talent on that stage. I was very proud of this dance community, proud of the choreographer who took chances on things that some people might not consider “dance”, and I’m excited to follow these artists as they continue to perform around town and on the national level, because it’s so inspiring to see new work.

    Comment by James Everest — 11/29/2007 @ 11:26 am

25. hmmm…interesting conversations…wonder why james everest hasn’t disclosed that he is emily johnson’s husband? is that significant?

    Comment by anon — 11/29/2007 @ 4:57 pm

26. To be quite honest i don’t think it is significant.
    James is intitled to his own opinion.
    People were hating on Hilary Clinton for having an opinion when her husband was president . She may well be our next president.
    I happen to agree with James. Dance for me is not limited to dance styles (modern dance, ballet, tap, jazz, hip hop etc) but is about physical movement of the human body, the simplicity, the subtly of the body in action. I am interested in people being people not only dancers when they perform. I also believe the Walker to be CONTEMPORARY ART venue, showcasing CONTEMPORARY DANCE. What a relief! I am currently in Japan working as an artist in residency at the Kyoto Art Center and as the choreographer for Incandescent and was not present at Choreographers evening.

    I love Emily’s questions and wish others would respond to them fully.
    What do you remember?
    What surprised you?
    Did you laugh? Did you cry?
    Did your mind wander?

    I see no question about a value system of good or bad….if you did not like the work great! Can you engage in the discomfort of why you did not like it or the joy of why u did? That would make a far more productive exchange.
    Thanks for the feisty thoughts.

    Olive

    Comment by Olive Bieringa — 11/29/2007 @ 7:02 pm

27. Thank you Olive - and thank you for focusing back in on the art in relation to James’ post - which is where the pertinent reasons for posting anything here reside.

    Please - everyone, when posting, keep the discussion to art, the Choreographers’ Evening dances, dance in general, the role of a curator, the MN dance scence, nudity, etc…..
    When you post, you do not have to say if you are my wife, husband, best friend, cousin, colleague, employer, mom, etc., etc. because that is personal. Please respect that.
    Thank you.

    Comment by Emily Johnson — 11/29/2007 @ 7:22 pm

28. “Dance as movement of the body” (even without intention, maybe?)is a very freeing way of thinking about this thing I think. That framework allows thought to circulate instead of be confined to questions of how the movement fits a form (of any kind).

    Maybe it is my ignorance or blindness, but coming from a theater background I am excited to find that there are a bunch of people in this city who are committed to the exploration of dance and do so in the public arena: esp things like 9×22 (thank you Ms Van Wieren) and Capture!ama (thank you Ms Johnson). I’m not going to take this into a discussion of theater here, but I feel that the “theater community” could take a cue here.

    To be able to witness the breadth of the local contemporary scene here is a wonderful thing, thanks again Ms Johnson and El Walker-ino, but it is a little like the icing on the cake, or maybe better put: the first step.

    To be able to take part in the (literal) conversations that happen about what the work is and why it is the way it is; to see the development of choreographers and performers; to take part in the movement myself — these are where the real action is.

    On that note, it interests me to find out what it is about this work that draws responses about its legitimacy. Art tends to elicit emotions both positive and negative — that’s not surprising and is only a baby step toward a more indepth discussion about what is going on in terms of the work.

    So I’ll say some about my thoughts on Chris Schlichting’s work. I don’t think I was the only one new to the scene who didn’t know for the first few moments if it was meant to provoke laughter. And that was exciting. For me part of the attributes of this work was the use of the performer’s face to express or delineate something performative (or maybe it is the entire physicality that has been shifted into a different plane of expression). Those looks Mr Jones and Ms Furnans threw to the audience were the clearest things to me signaling what is going on. Not only their bodies were present. Maybe that’s related to Ms Bieringa’s comment about “people being people and not only dancers when they perform.”

    Even the word “dance” has shifted its position…

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 11/29/2007 @ 10:06 pm

29. I was just now going to write about Anna's piece and try to join Lightsey and Charles' conversation from earlier, and I will, but at the moment I'm being pulled by your (Charles) most recent thoughts on Chris' dance and the recent questions/responses about/to "what is dance?" or "where was the dancing?…

    So, this is my post-re-view to : Example B: Joanna and Justin, pants, shirt, hair (or, the dance by Chris Schlichting). And, I have to start by repeating your last line, Charles: Even the word "dance" has shifted position. I love that.

    I love that I remember loving the song that Joanna and Justin danced to, but that right now I can't make the words come to me; I simply can't remember the song, though I know I know that song by heart. Images from the dancing though….I remember. I can literally almost replay this dance in my head, right now - and I'm feeling the same inclination to follow Joanna and Justin, to let their eyes lead me, to giggle as they jab into their mouths….This dance made me miss dancing. The work to get it so perfect, so unison, and so out of unison at the precise moment it needs to be while gobbling space - both bodies open, willing, pulling.

    So, I am, at this moment, struck with the importance of dance. Maybe importance isn't the correct word. Maybe uber-importance is better. Yes, the uber-importance of dance is hitting me full force right now (thank you Chris and Joanna and Justin). And thank you James, Olive, and Charles for your recent words - because though I am already a firm believer in "dance as movement of the body," your recent words are making sense with my reaction to Chris' dance. I mean - walking has been dance since forever and labeled dance for at least 40 some odd years, right? So - eyes directing meaning and hair guiding me to chuckle because their bangs are kind of caressing their foreheads as they move their heads just so IS DANCE. I love that Chris choreographed/costumed the hair. The minute details we can portray AND perceive through the body is astounding and I think this is why I can't remember the song, but I can remember the dance, even though I've known that song for a far longer time. And this is why, though I absolutly love music, I am drawn to movement - specifically movement of the body - over and over again.

    There is no way I can interpret what any of the movement in Chris' dance meant.
    Mostly because I am against interpretation (HAHAHA, I mean, while I'm "borrowing" awesome lines from people, why not continue?….see http://www.susansontag.com/againstinterpretationexcrpt.htm).
    All I can do is note what I did see: embellish. lush. drive. reach. grab. pull. mouth. circle. kidney. belly. small butt. love. And I did see: Joanna and Justin dancing and easily lifting their chins, rolling their heads against the words of that song I can't remember. And I did see: strain and confidence.

    When the train kind of sound came in toward the end, I was forced to move out of this story/experience that was forming in my body and in my mind. I didn't like that. I wanted to stay, of course, with what, in a few short minutes, I had grown accustomed to. But, thank god Chris completely derailed my personal little pleasure ride….though I bristled every single time! (I think I saw the dance 7 times). I'm glad and so thankful Chris shook my mind from the loving and hating and wanting and working and dancing and screaming and everything else I was coming up with and put me back to: "What is this dance?"

    It was a beautiful moment for me (x7!), and I was shaken enough to be forced to notice not only the movement of the two bodies, eyes, and hair dancing but also the considered construction of my relationship to that movement. This is beautiful choreography! Not only with the two beautiful bodies beautifully dancing on stage - but with the abrupt alteration of my aural environment! Chris, you actually choreographed INSIDE my brain! Yes, the word "dance" has shifted its position!!!

    Comment by Emily Johnson — 11/30/2007 @ 12:52 am

30. I think for me, with reference to “Against Interpretation,” the moment when it becomes impossible to gain (emotional/intellectual/ physical/psychological) control over my experience of the performance is the moment of risk, of freedom — the hard won respite from this brain that never stops. It is like a space of vertigo. A moment free from the “mimetic theory,” maybe.

    And this moment can’t be bottled for re-use. Maybe the above antagonism between questioning the works’ legitimacy and the descriptions we offer “against interpretation” is a marker of the intangiblity and impermanence of what is happening, despite its immediate visceral presence in our experience.

    That said, maybe it is my neophyte status here but there is another question I find important to ask about the evening (and by extension, about the work already happening outside the Walker’s Walls). Not about what it Was, or what it Means (as valid as these questions are) but:

    What are the differences (and not qualitative, stylistic or formal differences) between the pieces of the evening, and what do these differences suggest about the place this movement occupies in the here and now?

    In other words, it must be possible to speak meaningfully about the movement in its contexts and in our history without reference to a “mimetic theory” or clear description.

    I suppose that probably requires too much space for a blog, but for me in all seriousness this is a question that takes part in the larger framework of issues freedom and justice. It underlies my thinking about Choreographer’s Evening, my fascination with these people and their work, my own work, and what it is possible to do as an artist in times like these when the most obscene things are perpetrated by the Righteous in the name of a Cause.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 11/30/2007 @ 10:27 am

31. I’ve been reading the various comments for a few days now and thought I would add a few of my own. I was honored when Terri Yellowhammer asked me to jingle dance with her group. Being the eldest of the group with an old school attitude, I wasn’t sure at the time that this was the right venue for our dance, but I have changed my mind since that evening.

    What do I remember: Getting the opportunity to be back stage watching the performers. The giddy nervousness that we all shared. Each group waiting for their call from the stage manager. I remember thinking that I didn’t see an Ipod in the whole crowd. These young adults were resting, reading a book (yippee) or watching the monitor.

    What surprised me: My husband and grandson(he’s 14) attended the second show. It was late when we left, but we had a short discussion about the performance that evening. The next evening we went out for dinner. We talked about the show for over an hour. We discussed what we liked and didn’t like. My grandson made the comment that we should do this more often because we were having a deep intellectual conversation. How cool is that.

    Did I laugh: Some of the costumes were funny. I tried not to laugh in the dressing room, but I couldn’t help it. And the performer laughed right along with me. It wasn’t rudeness, just happy. My thoughts were, here are women who are dressed up in a costume that is different from the norm, but they didn’t care. And I have a great respect for that.

    Did I cry: I did cry alittle inside when it was done. My whole reaction to the performance was: scared, nervous, happy and then sadness. Don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t wait to get my performance done the first time because I was so nervous. I did want to cry though after the last jingle dance. The experience of being a part of all the younger people and their energy was amazing.

    Thank you Emily for including us. It was a good experience for me and my family.

    Comment by Lou Crain — 11/30/2007 @ 11:52 am

32. Lovely note from Lou.

    The argument going on above that, “Where was the dance? Where was the dance?!?” etc–perhaps we could address the underlying difference? A lot of people want to see artists do something that they themselves cannot do; that is, they want to witness that the art has a reason for being presented as art, as worth seeing. There’s nothing wrong with that, really. Think about it: if you’ve ever been to a bad Nutcracker, or a middle school band concert, you’re familiar with the underlying irritation: why do they think they can subject me to this? One hopes that the art will prove that it deserves to be art–if only by its ballsy badness (but I’m getting ahead of myself).
    The difficulty occurs because novice viewers of contemporary dance typically think that excellence in dance occurs only in mastery of physically tricky steps. (Additionally, novice viewers generally also have a fairly limited idea of what is tricky.) Therefore, if no one does any physically tricky steps, it’s not real dance.
    So perhaps the way forward would be for one side to explain other types of excellence in dance (Emily is doing that somewhat), and for the other side to consider these ideas. Then we can get right back to lobbing tomatoes at each other, but at least we’ll be doing it with some underlying understanding of each others’ positions.
    Seriously, though, I object to this antagonism between contemporary and classical modes. Preferring one to the other is fine (preferring Swan Lake to The Show Must Go On, or vice versa), but absolutely refusing to see that the other has merit? Chowderheaded! really. Swan Lake was new once and The Show Must Go On will be old in time. The past is not sacred and the present’s not hell. And, on the other side, we’re not so wise now that we won’t all look pretty silly a hundred years from now.

    Comment by Lightsey Darst — 11/30/2007 @ 12:58 pm

33. Choreographers' Evening has become a landmark celebration for dance in the Twin Cities. It was started at the Walker Art Center 35 years ago with Judith Brin Ingber's initiative and has changed over the years to reflect the landscape of dance in our shared community. We find the seemingly ever-expanding scale and diversity (of all types) both hopeful and unifying.

    It is exciting to read everyone's thoughts on dance vs movement, along with past and present needs of the dance community, and how to develop a dialogue around art with respect and honesty. The Performing Arts blog is an ideal platform for everyone to have a voice and for all opinions to be expressed.

    For the record:

    Choreographers' Evening curators are chosen for their level of expertise and their involvement in the local dance community. In an earlier comment, assumptions were made about CE curators' skin color without knowledge of who past curators have been and their personal heritage. We'd encourage folks to examine this history before making assumptions.

    Nudity is presented in the Walker's general performing arts programming all the time, and this has included MN-based, national and international artists. Its inclusion inevitably excludes some patrons from attending shows. The compromise to have a non-nude (the Walker did not term this show "family") 7pm show was made by the Performing Arts staff to insure that we could provide a choice to audiences and to be inclusive and transparent about the content of the works being presented. For this to be deemed censorship seems to be irresponsibly expanding the notion of that powerful word. The Saturday after Thanksgiving draws many family members to CE, from young to old and with various belief systems. Jaime's piece was never categorized as PG but was simply noted as containing nudity. By offering two versions of the program, we are able to serve more audience members as opposed to less. If people were curious about the distinction between the two shows, there were tickets available to the late show right up until showtime so we believe no one was denied the ability to choose which show they wanted to see.

    The Walker is proud to serve the local dance community by producing Choreographers' Evening and we look forward to another 35+ years of innovation and distinction from Twin Cities dance-makers. Please feel free to contact us directly anytime.

    Michèle Steinwald, Program Manager, Performing Arts
    and
    Philip Bither, Senior Curator, Performing Arts

    Comment by Michèle Steinwald — 11/30/2007 @ 6:25 pm

34. Congratulations on 35 years, and hearty kudos and thanks to Ms Ingber.

    I still believe the decision to provide a “non-nude” show was an error and does leave the Walker open to charges of censorship. Even couched in terms of “transparency” and “choice,” when artistic material is examined and suppressed like this it is a manifestation of police logic (see Jacques Ranciere’s work _Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy_ in which he recognizes that “the policeman is one element in a social mechanism linking medicine, welfare and culture”).

    And although I question the defense offered here that seems to supplant artistic questions with economic* ones, the larger issue is that responsibility must ethically reside with the audience and not the presenter. Once we as artists and presenters take steps to accommodate an audience’s belief systems, we will be walking in the wrong direction.

    * the question of whether serving more audience members is an economic one or a social one can be debated, but it is not an artistic one.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 11/30/2007 @ 11:09 pm

35. Lou, I’m so glad you shared your experience - your post itself made me cry - I think mostly how you relayed the connection and conversation with your grandson. That is the most gratifying thing to me when seeing any performance, or any art - the instigation of conversation and ideas (right?, like this blog!).

    And I am SO happy you decided to perform! It was thrilling for me to see and really important personally that I program Jingle dress dance into this show. At one point, I was focusing so intently on the similarities/differences in the footwork I got dizzy sitting in my seat.
    I was wondering if you could describe a little bit more about why, initially, you didn’t think it would be the right venue for Ikewag Waci and what the experience was like to dance at the Walker - how it was different, or if… Were you concerned with audience expectation or our level of understanding or maybe connection to the Jingle dress or fancy shawl? I understand if you don’t want to discuss it here, but I’d be very interested in a conversation.

    thanks!

    Comment by Emily Johnson — 12/1/2007 @ 1:13 am

36. Thank you all for posting. I missed the performance, but this conversation is really valuable. The reactions and insights are great (as are aeschylus and susan sontag), so are the strong opinions.

    I’m looking forward to more. Can we keep this focus on local work going while talking about the shows the Walker bring to town? People talk about all “the amazing local talent.”

    What are you enjoying locally? How does it relate to Walker work?

    Comment by Galen Treuer — 12/1/2007 @ 6:30 pm

37. To address the economics of Choreographers’ Evening, the ticket proceeds are split equally between the participating groups.

    Comment by Michèle Steinwald — 12/1/2007 @ 6:53 pm

38. I’ve been thinking a lot about the ‘nudity issue’ that has surrounded this year’s Choreographer’s Evening, and I think it’s important to explain the concept of what the event is and its goals as a yearly occurance.

    At its very simplest, Choreographers’ Evening is about community.
    It’s a showcase of dance works by local artists, it is curated by a local guest curator, and it is witnessed by a local audience. And being BY the community and FOR the community, I think that it is incredibly important that that community is open to everyone regardless of cultural, religious, intellectual and moral beliefs. I’d like to suggest that the goal of CE is not necessarily to push the envelope and stretch the boundaries of innovation in dance (though sometimes that does happen which is amazing), but to build a community of people who love and appreciate human movement. In my opinion, that is why the Walker strives to disclose any pontentially offensive parts of Choreographers’ Evening to the audience– because how awful would it be to be that person who leaves this show feeling unwelcome as a part of the Twin Cities dance community.

    In handing over the evening to a guest curator, the Performing Arts programmers put a lot of trust in that person– and as Emily said, it is an INCREDIBLY difficult task. How do you put together an evening of local dance that represents both your interests as a curator, and at the same time is representative of a wonderfully rich and diverse dance commmunity? This year’s show reflected a lot of Emily’s personal taste: many works that were postmodern, conceptual, or somewhat challenging to traditional definitions of dance. And for this particular curation, maybe it would have been appropriate to allow nudity at both shows. However, the nature of Choreographers’ Evening as an annual event is to be for the broader dance community. In having Jaime to do his piece at the later show, Emily and the Walker are actually risking the possiblilty of alienating a part of that community.

    Luckily, the Walker’s mission is all about taking risks. And that means trusting the opinions of its guest curator, which is why we got to see Jaime’s piece at the later show. Personally, I’m glad that we got the chance to see it, though from managing the box office, I know for a fact that we did have people who chose to go to the earlier show specifically because of the nudity at the later. So if you still think that this whole “issue” is a case of the Walker simply snuffing Jamie’s artistic voice, I’d urge you to reconsider. Choreographers’ Evening is for the ENTIRE Twin Cities dance community– dancers, choreographers and audience, and so, due to the nature of the event, I don’t think it was a wrong choice to keep the earlier show on the modest side.

    Comment by Max Wirsing — 12/1/2007 @ 7:47 pm

39. Regarding Galen’s question:

    Coming from a theater background, I have spent no more than a year or so paying close attention to some local dance artists. Prior to that I had seen dance but had not found any of it engaging (or local) enough to commit to (thankfully there is always plenty of art here to explore).

    Then I saw a collection of pieces at the Red Eye that were billed as dance that included the work of Ms Shogren. I was puzzled and delighted by it. It seemed not to fit into any conception of dance (or theater, or performance art, or movement theater, or dance-theater) that I had previously. It was simultaneously mystifying and gratifying. It was exciting. I began to follow her and saw others whose work I found equally engaging — some of whom were part of this Choreographer’s evening.

    There is now a small group of artists whose work I like to follow, that I find inspiring and exciting. I know there are others out there, but I feel no need to admire all dance. Some in fact bores me to tears. But I am willing to explore, even in this loosely defined discipline that I am new to.

    In general terms I go to the Walker to see work I would not get a chance to see otherwise. Choreographer’s Evening was a little unusual for me because the work presented was not from out of town. And this time I was taking part in Ms Bieringa’s work. I was pleased to be exposed to work that I had not seen before and doubly pleased to see this collection of work together in one place.

    I think it is great that the Walker can lend its prestige to local artists and present their work to what might be a broader community. And as part of the National Performance Network the Walker is also the area’s connection to that pool of artists. The Walker, as a large institution, has all the advantages and disadvantages this entails. I am grateful for the role it plays here. As Mr Wirsing mentions, the Walker “put a lot of trust in” Ms Johnson — as an institution they have a lot invested in producing a successful evening. And as Ms Steinwald suggests, a successful evening is one which “serve[s] more audience members as opposed to less.” The Walker invests a good deal of time, money and effort to bring Choreographer’s Evening to fruition. Consequently, Choreographer’s Evening is in part representing The Walker as well as the artists involved, and the Walker must protect its investment, its reputation, and its position in the brutal world of arts-institution funding. They must do this so they can continue to present exciting work to the area and its various communities.

    In this way the Walker is part of our local arts community, but if the term “community” is shifted slightly, it is not. “Community,” however interpreted, must by definition exclude those who are outside it. By excluding Jamie’s piece, the Walker has only revealed its priorities that follow naturally from its institutional status. I merely find offensive the cloaking of the institutional and economic realities of the need to keep Jamie’s piece out of half the evening in terms of inclusion and social service — denying that the choice excludes anyone and has no detrimental impact on the audience/art relationship.

    In any case, I found Jamie’s piece to be eerie and provocative in a subtle way. A little like a David Lynch piece, it was suggestive of many things in a somehow uncomfortable way. The hair, my lord, it glistened like plastic. And waving in front of his body it seemed so “wrong” and so perfect. The juxtaposition of the artificial and the real that at first seemed so clear and harsh grew stranger and stranger until the distinction was made superfluous. By the end, him in those shoes and that wig (and in that body) was like a drug — and not an over-the-counter one. Again the facial expression was for me a signal or a clue about how to take part in the experience. There was no code — it was a series of symbols made of flesh. Or maybe it made the flesh into just another symbol.

    (At this rate, I’ll eventually get to all the pieces of the evening.)

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 12/1/2007 @ 10:24 pm

40. Terri Yellowhammer and I had this conversation before I agreed to dance. As I stated in the last conversation, my beliefs are old school. I have never worn my jingle dress for anything other than a healing purpose. I have only danced at ceremonies where someone was in need of the jingle dancer. When I wear this dress, I don’t think about the dance itself, but the prayers I say for the person/people. I didn’t have that center or thought I didn’t have it. I truly messed up the dance steps while at rehearal. I was distessed because I was the lead dancer. I was standing in the circle waiting for the curtain to rise and I took a deep breathe and truly listened to Sandy Whitehawk who was asked to say an introduction for our group. And I smiled and prayed for all. It just came together and I was truly happy. My mom was in the audience and she said how good it was to see my smile. So when you asked me if there was a difference in dancing at the Walker, I have to say no, once I found the center.

    I did want to add another thing. When you mentioned the different footwork of each individual, I was so glad. We all have our different styles and body movements. My one concern in the beginning was that we or should I say “I” am not a professional dancer. Or what I thought was a professional dancer. I mean come on, the beauty of Joanna and Justin’s performance was magnificent. That was true dancing in unison. I mean they looked like a shadow of each other. But then I saw the other dancers at rehersals, my thinking in this area changed. The different routines of the performers were exciting to watch. There was true commitment and passion in each performer that night. I was so glad to be a part of that. Although I still don’t consider myself a professional dancer, I have learned that I have the commitment and passion to dance anywhere now. What a great experience.

    Comment by Lou Crain — 12/2/2007 @ 1:18 pm

41. Hello,

    My name is Cara, I made the last piece of the show (with all of the white dressed people and twinkly music and small movements).

    Its great to read all the writing from different folks about the show. It would be nice to read some more comments about the actual movement, ideas and feelings communicated by different pieces in addition or perhaps to balance out debate about what is accepted and appropriate in society and on the walker stage.

    What I most recollect, is a happiness from passion and committment all of the choreographers and dancers had to what they were doing. I was surrounded by wildly talented people, there was a power behind stage from all the people just doing what they love.

    Watching Anna Marie made me laugh and think about all the dance I’ve seen in the past (like the bill cosby show) that I forgot to appreciate. When I saw the piece sans person number two, I enjoyed it more I believe. She was not invisible on stage to me, but had a lovely, jovial presence, which is intriguing and powerful in a less conspicuous way than the power emitted by the dueling tap dancers or a circle of jingle dress dancers.
    I liked Terri Yellowhammer’s piece for its aesthetic qualities but also its traditional aspect, which brought about a different kind of interpretation/meaning than say Chris Schlicting’s. Chris’s piece was soothing and meditative to watch. I loved the twist from serious, straight forward movement to a playful and slightly corny tone. The piece felt like a narrative, in a completed way though I hadn’t a clue what it was about. The actual movement felt very direct and decisive about being odd and indecisive.
    Sally’s piece was fantastic, it was formal, a little edgy and theatrical. Sometimes I get frustrated with the balances between dance and theatre, but Sally struck it perfectly.
    Perhaps this is why I had a trouble fully engaging with Dylan and Susan’s FBI piece. I loved the repetitive ma’am and fbi’s and f’s, and the intense focus Dylan and Susan had. The addition of the poem was interesting, but I was confused about the part it was meant to play.
    Mad King Thomas went straight to my heart and laughing guts. There is no better way to reflect on the ridiculous natures of womanizing than creating a ridiculous, hillarious dance piece.

    I’m intereted in the different kinds of intrigue and knowledge each piece had to offer. Whether or not you liked the piece, there is always something new to discover or rediscover. I hope to read more discussion about these possibilities. If you have thoughts about my piece, it would be nice to read them. I’m pretty new at this and I would really love to know how you felt or feel still.

    Cheers

    Comment by Cara Krippner — 12/2/2007 @ 3:18 pm

42. This was my third annual attendance at the Choreographers’ Evening and by far the most disappointing. At each of the others I was introduced to choreographers I wanted to seek out to see more of their work. I don’t expect to look for any of this year’s artists except maybe to avoid them. Last year my sister and brother-in-law came from Colorado and were impressed with the offering. I was glad that they didn’t come this year!

    What do you remember? Nothing much. I sang the Bicycle song for a day but that had to do with the music as much, or more than, the dance.
    What surprised you? How uninteresting it all was.
    Did you laugh? Did you cry? Yes, I laughed.
    Did your mind wander? Not really.

    I’d like to suggest that all the performances in a Choreographers’ Evening have some significant choreography to them. Tap improv while fun to watch does not by it’s nature involve choreography. The jingle dance while also enjoyable to watch didn’t seem to have significant choreography. I’d like to see all the evening’s performance time made available to choreographers. Isn’t that the point?

    Comment by Elizabeth Butler — 12/3/2007 @ 9:54 am

43. Most of my memories are from dress rehearsal, and are fragments of the whole. I'm part of Mad King Thomas, so I was backstage a lot of the time.

    I remember feeling mesmerized in Olive's piece by the variety of movement, how people jump in so many ways. The variety of it--and the dancers' commitment to jumping/slowing at their own pace was very pleasing -it reminded me that people are willing to go against the grain.

    I remember Kaleena laughing and saying, "Okay," to Ricci as their piece drew to a close, and the casual joy it brought to the virtuosic dance.

    I remember watching Anna try to be antagonistic and instead just feeling like she was so friendly. I remember Jessica in the parking lot, captivating me with her car and her crows.

    I remember hearing about the intent of the Jingle Dress dancers and trying to hold my own intent in mind as I danced, to think about what it is I would like to heal with our dances. I remember the dancers all throwing their arms above their heads at the end of the dance, and the little one running off-stage to the front row.

    I remember smiling as Chris' music came on, and then laughing for reasons I can't quite put my thumb on. I was happy that the audience was laughing at Chris' dance, because his jokes were much more subtle and physical than ours. I remember the head nod on "you", and realizing how different and similar Joanna and Justin are.

    In Dylan and Susan's piece, I remember barely being able to see Monica as she descended the stairs, I remember a dance in two halves with one point in between. I remember feeling pleased and content when Monica, Dylan and Susan all faced forward at the end of the piece.

    Sally's dance was disturbing and I wish I'd gotten a chance to see it more than once. I remember the beer can, the beauty and bravery of Sally twisting herself into the bow and falling to her knees. The bizarre double narrative of Sally and Ben walking a tense line, commenting on one another. The barely controlled rage in Sally's beautifully controlled body. Seeing her at plucking her knees, staunchly refusing to make any noise. I hope you show it again, Sally.

    I remember watching from the wings and seeing the joy on the dancers in Kenna’s dance. Thinking that if we could bring a tiny fraction of that joy to the stage, then we have accomplished something.

    I remember the dancers' frantic compulsion to randomly but evenly distribute the lemons while Emily talked, seeing a handful of us run to perfect the stage for Joanna's dance. I remember the clattering of green bottles and the shuffle of loose papers, the matte pink of the dress and the glittering glass, shining lemons, sparkling jewels. I never saw this one from the front, unfortunately. I remember her faked scream, like from a movie. I remember, of course, hordes of dancers in different outfits coming out to collect lemons and papers, and bottles. I remember seeing Chris left to the end, in a sweater vest, picking up the last pieces.

    I remember seeing Jaime's body from the side, contortions and calmness, giving space for countless associations and emotions to arise.

    I remember seeing us packed into a far too small dressing room, but everyone seemed happy and calm, lying over one another on couches, the floors, everywhere. I remember people smiling at us in our bikinis.

    I never saw Cara's or Pam's dance--I'm sorry, Cara and Pam!

    What surprised me: How friendly everyone was in a stressful situation. The group cheer after the last show. How upset I was during Sally's piece. The shift in Chris' music.

    Usually my mind wandering was the reason I liked the dance. It wandered during Olive's piece--to thoughts about each of the people on stage, why they chose their outfits, why they were not jumping any longer, why they held their bodies the way they did. My mind wandered during Jaime's piece, to thoughts of beauty queens and quinceaneras and prom dresses and Charles Atlas and Morticia Adams.

    Thank you, Emily, for curating so gracefully. And thank you to everyone who saw the show, and to everyone who has written so far.

    Comment by Tara King — 12/3/2007 @ 11:29 am

44. I’m still fascinated by the real/not-real question that continually returns.

    I wonder if this issue comes up out because there is something to the evening’s choreography (or non-choreography) that is not understood, or whether it is really just a matter of taste. If the first then I think it is a good idea to talk more here about what the choreographers were thinking about, were trying to do, were working with, in their pieces. Perhaps there is some perspective that might allow an increased level of acceptance for some and for others a deeper understanding.

    I know I would be interested in knowing what the choreographers were thinking when they made these pieces, and found them all fascinating.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 12/3/2007 @ 9:46 pm

45. http://mnartists.org/article.do?rid=170202

    Comment by Lightsey Darst — 12/4/2007 @ 12:36 pm

46. Oh, there’s so much I want to write; be involved in…responding to Lou and discussing dance for ceremony/dance for stage and finding our centers….the broad meaning of choreography, including improvisation…..differing views on excellence - and how Lightsey and Charles are discussing dance and appreciation (or hatred, it seems) of different types, styles, ideas about dance…….censorship, which should always be talked about……what I remember of the individual dances and why I posted the questions for post-re-view that I did…..All in time, I suppose, for now I don’t have the time it all requires, except to again express wonderment and gratitude that there is so much discussion happening! Whatever your P-O-V, the discussion is obviously needed. And to read what people are remembering - it is amazing! Also - I just want to mention that I think it is really great that Lightsey is involved in this blog-thing….she is a ‘dance writer/critic’ and open, ongoing, and informal discussions between choreographers, critics, and audiences don’t happen as often as they should. I really respect that you are so involved, Lightsey…

    Comment by Emily Johnson — 12/4/2007 @ 2:51 pm

47. Re: Nudity:

    I’d like to thank all who’ve written before me for the scrappy postings. Then, I’d like to offer that in all previous posts, if you substitute ‘Queer’/ ness each time ‘Naked’/ ness is used (thanks again), what remains is my apposite analysis of which part of Which Community was being protected from What.

    The 7pm omission is much less about sexual nudity, yawn, and much, much more about the nudity of Sexuality and transgressive explorations of such.

    Come down to it, it has to be about selling tickets, true. And this means pandering to straight people and white men, of course, pfft. But Brother Jaime was the only queer content in the whole show, aside from all the Feminist bicycle-humping which was possibly a close cousin. And since the Feminists weren’t humping each Other (shoulda?), and wearing helmets, they were permitted to share their brilliance with the family crowd. Jaime, he’s just indisputably Queer.

    Comment by Anonymous Synonymous — 12/4/2007 @ 7:05 pm

48. This is a great conversation about contemporary art, what is choreography etc. it’s interesting to read how disappointed some people are with many of the pieces in the show. It suggests that there was expectation left unmet - which is what is at the core of this discussion. I want to offer up the possibility that there’s a lot to appreciate in this show if one is willing to participate. It’s a lot to switch one’s mode of participation from virtuostic tap dancers to Joanna’s mysterious lemon piece, but I think that that is what is required from us as audience members.
    The piece I made with Susan Scalf is perhaps not successful yet. It seems to have elicited head-scratching pretty universally. It maybe needs to be put back in the oven a little longer. Or it needs more than the seven minutes alloted to unfold properly. For me, this is ok. We tried and didn’t quite make it, that’s the way it goes. But even our piece can be rewarding to some degree if one gives oneself over to it. Trying and failing can be interesting.
    Also, “impenetrability” can have it’s value as alluded to in Lightsey’s review. While watching Joanna’s piece I wasn’t able to get a clear communication. I couldn’t quite read what was going on, and yet there was so much that drew me in, the lemons on the black stage, the green bottles, her pink dress, her performance. It was obvious that something was going on even if i didn’t know what it was. I find that tension of not knowing really interesting. it’s clear from her piece that joanna is a thoughtful and interesting artist and so the fact that I’m not getting a clear read has a different effect for me than an unclear read from an artist who is simply unable to provide clarity.
    As an aside, although I am sensitive to the pressures an institution like the Walker must face, the censoring of jaime is still pretty weak.

    Comment by Dylan — 12/5/2007 @ 9:07 am

49. Dylan brings up a point I find interesting. Well, several points. Four.
    1. An expectation unmet.
    2. Trying and failing.
    3. Impenetrability.
    4. Institutional pressure/weakness.

    I think they are all related, or at least circulate around the same center.

    1. Ms Darst in her review distinguishes between traditional choreography (”the composing and directing of dance steps”) and an idea of choreography suggested by Choreographer’s Evening as either improvisation or tradition. It seems to me Ms Darst is courageously attempting to tackle the issue that underlies some of the antagonism apparent above (or as Mr Synonymous put it “scrappy postings.”) That is, (as Dylan says) “what is choreography?” The mere fact that it is called into question by this show is a testament to the artists featured (as well as those not featured who work along similar lines) but also to the aesthetic-political situation in which we as artists currently live and work. But to get back to Ms Darst’s writing, it seems that there was something about the evening that was somehow unsatisfying, or not enough, or missing (including representation of “Sincere, emotional, dramatic dance featuring virtuosic technique.”) Given the limited exploration of what was described as missing by other posters so far, it seems to me fair to take this as a point in common — maybe this is the expectation that went unmet for some.

    2. This should be taken in the context of Dylan’s comment about how trying and failing can be interesting. Although I do not know if Choreographer’s Evening has traditionally been a place for experimentation in curating or even in the work itself (Ms Steinwald’s post above seems to suggest otherwise), I believe contemporary art — of any discipline — is always an experiment and consequently always more likely to fail, and consequently more likely to offend, disappoint, or otherwise drive away audiences. Ms Johnson’s curatorial choices, while clearly not limited to contemporary “avant-garde” choreographers, do in and of themselves fit this experimental paradigm. In other words, the evening itself was a piece of experiment (on that note, thank heaven for Ms Cressey’s tableau piece in the parking lot. There’s a lot to say there about dance, movement, consumption, art, money and politics: brilliant.)

    3. Impenetrability is one of those words that can be taken negatively. In Ms Darst’s use of it with regard to some of the evening’s performances she suggested that perhaps if she could have seen more of the work it might allow more clarity (or perhaps, more transparency). For me a certain amount of impenetrability (not complete impenetrability) is a necessary thing to have because it is a sign of something new, something which we do not have the language for (and consequently the rationalizations with which to classify it and file it away as mere entertainment). This is related to Mr T. Adorno’s essay “Commitment” in which he discusses a kind of art that functions as “knowledge as a nonconceptual object.” There is a power here in these works of art that has less to do with their “content” and more with how the make use of representation to function as art objects. To me this seems particularly relevant, especially in light of the issue of Jamie’s piece.

    4. Regardless of whether the provoking factor was about “sexual nudity” or the “nudity of sexuality” (and Mr Synonymous’s point is well-taken), the upshot is that clearly something rankled someone about his work. My point is that this friction is intimately related to the friction we see above between people who thought the evening was disappointing or less than usual or somehow unsatisfactory. Not (please don’t misunderstand me) because all the shows were the same, or about the same thing, or even about power and censorship, but because they were collected by Ms Johnson for whatever reason and together took part in a mode of representation that is trying something new. And newness is always a little controversial (we fear what we don’t understand, and we hate what we fear, and we try to kill what we hate).

    Because this is the way I see it, I find that the controversy about Jamie’s piece is a central question here — and not just because I think censorship is always important to bring to light. I think the issue of censorship is also inherently and irreducibly connected to the aesthetic aspects of the evening. Jamie’s piece was — whether because of its nudity, because of its sexuality, because of its connection to “performance art,” or for whatever reason — merely the easiest or most obvious piece to condemn, both as a means of economic damage control but also as a means (intended or otherwise) of threatening the artists: you may do what you wish, but you must remember who holds the real power in the end. This is not an external Bad Guy Big Brother Power Trip. It is just the nature of the beast in which we live. And I will be the first to say that this relationship of creativity to censorship is not confined to institutions and their hires. It is a part of each of us and it is vital for us to confront it Wherever we find it.

    And so I am grateful to Ms Johnson, all the choreographers and performers, and all those who take part in this discussion. This is where the rubber hits the road.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 12/5/2007 @ 11:23 am

50. That’s Ms Synonymous to you, Charles.

    Comment by Anonymous Synonymous — 12/5/2007 @ 1:05 pm

51. Of course. Not that I had any way of knowing, but you can just call me Ms Take.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 12/5/2007 @ 4:23 pm

52. Speaking of gender…

    If gender is at least in part a role a la Ms J. Butler, and if performance (including dance of all kinds) is always role playing (even in the most direct/”real” and improvised piece) then I would argue that this Choreographer’s Evening was a space in which, more than elsewhere, play was allowed. Artistic play, which I think is a slightly more rigorous kind of play than some others, and can and should roll over borders of all sorts of identity, aesthetic, social, formal (etc etc) politics.

    To be specific, maybe:I was liking the lemons in Ms Furnans’s piece. And I’m kind of stuck. Why were the vocalizations sort of half-spoken, instead of either completely silent or at full volume? Is this a representational thing? About trying to be both things (represented “character” and non-represented “performer” at the same time)?

    This kind of slipperiness happened a lot, and to me is one of the hallmarks of some of the movement I’ve seen lately (that I think is what Ms Darst refers to when she says “avant-garde” movement).

    I like it. Sometimes though I can see how it relates to the whole, and sometimes I can’t. I couldn’t in Ms Furnans’s piece.

    This is only a bother in that until I can make a connection between that aspect and her whole, I can’t make that machine run.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 12/5/2007 @ 4:52 pm

53. This is, indeed, some fabulous discourse. I love this community.

    Ah...which community you might ask... Ms. Synonymous...

    I'm just not convinced that Jaime's piece was excluded from the early show due to his (gorgeous) nude representation of transgressive sexuality. If you know something I don't know do share, Anonymous, maybe we can get to the bottom of it. I am also concerned with your implied suggestion that "humping" would have made Mad King Thomas's piece "more queer". Come on, given the context, making that choice would have catapulted them to the top of the straight male fantasy (if they weren't there already). Why was Mr. O'Toole laughing so hard anyway?

    How about throwing Chris Schlichting's piece into the mix? I've always considered his piece to be queer. We are gender-neutral performers (same hair, same cloths, same physical execution), void of specifically gendered choreography (no traditional feminine turns, no traditional masculine jumps), performing a duet in which we never make physical contact; a pas de deux where the man and woman never touch and barely even make eye contact. (And, no, they are not doing it to be coy). In my mind Justin and I are interchangeable so we are able to exchange our already solvent gender(s) in the context of a highly traditional form (the pas de deux). I love the gender play. I love how the play tickles a specific dance convention. Seems like a queer dance to me.

    Charles, I chose to vocalize at a low volume to exemplify/magnify this particular woman's "lack of voice" or literally her inability to be heard. In so doing I assumed the audience would either strain to hear (if they cared) or dismiss the sound and simply acknowledge that something was trying to be communicated and that communication failed. All the while (because of this intention) the audience was actually "hearing" exactly what the woman wanted to say. Clearly the character could have chosen to speak up but decided against it. I was experimenting, in part, with a female character who was actually more conscious of and had more control over her position in life than she would like others to believe.

    I agree with Dylan...trying and failing is extremely interesting.

    I remember the shift in energy between the green room and the hallway leading to the stage. I was surprised that we ran out of toilet paper in the dressing room. A little laughing. No crying. I'm sure my mind wandered.

    Comment by Joanna Furnans — 12/6/2007 @ 12:04 am

54. (Chug chug chug…the machine has started.)

    Thank you Ms Furnans. I think it is pointed how you talk about the character and voice in your piece. To me this suggests that you think of this work in a way that is maybe more holistic (?) than of in terms of discipline. In other words, your use of the entire stage, the large lemon-picking cast, as well as the movement vocabulary that liberally took part in gesture and “character”-based movement, all say that the the work was made as an artwork (in general and expansive terms), with all the available materials available for use.

    Now not having a good grounding in dance history or the details of its formal developments or schools or movements, to me this suggests that the creation of the work is done while focusing on something larger and more personal than “making a good dance.” Maybe a parallel would be the creation of theater thought of as a directly expressive, communicative, evocative art instead of a coded (mimetic) representation of some alternative reality that only indirectly reaches an audience. Rather than attempting to “make good theater” the attempt is to create an autonomous, effective work of art that uses performance as a medium.

    Thought of in this way, the distinctions of discipline (This one is real dance, this other is not) become meaningless — or at least petty, thoughtless, and missing the point entirely. From this perspective, there is no “real” dance, there is only the effort and the affect.

    If this is “avant-garde” than, yes, please. But I don’t like the term with its military origins and its inherent elitism.

    I prefer the distinction between “art” (good, bad or indifferent) and “museum piece.”

    According to which, Mr Schlichting’s piece appears to have an interesting relation with the Jingle Dress Dance. It is my thought that the Jingle Dress Dance, especially in the context of Choreographer’s Evening, was a brilliant piece of work. It is historical, in that the dance itself has a long and complex ceremonial history, but it is also contemporary in that it is being practiced now (as was suggested in Ms Whitehawk’s introduction) as ceremony. It revealed the weaknesses in thinking about art in any sort of dichotomy (see my error above: “art” vs “museum piece”) and managed to achieve a sort of historical and contemporary fusion in the present, in the space of the Now. It required an entirely different way of seeing. And of thinking (if one was so inclined) about “what is dance.” And it did all this in a way that was intimately connected to the everyday beauties of day-to-day practicalities of living.

    Mr Schlichting’s piece, as analyzed by Ms Furnans above, takes part in a related move. Although not embodying time in the same way, or fusing practice and representation in the same way, in retrospect I agree with Ms Furnans that it suggested all sorts of subversions of formal rules that include rules of dance, gender, sexuality, and identity.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 12/6/2007 @ 10:39 am

55. FROM CHARLES’ POST:
    “”"If this is "avant-garde" than, yes, please. But I don't like the term with its military origins and its inherent elitism. “”"”
    Sourced from Lightsey Darsts’ writing

    I agree that the term ‘avant-garde’ is being used incorrectly, and I don’t feel like she is using in an anachronistic or ironic way. The term ‘Avante-Garde’ with its roots in the movements of the 1900s-1910s (where I think Mr Campbell you’re eluding to the ‘elitism,’ they surely were elite arrogant men (and a few women)) nor its ‘refounding’ [neo-avant’garde] in New York during the 1960s and 1970s (here including performance art and the dance realm), and fizzle in the 1980s, is by no means a good way to characterize the ” ____ ” dance community from the larger Modern Companies, and traditional Ballet companies. I don’t think one can’t ignore the history of the term Avant Garde. Plus doesn’t Avant-Gardeism coming once, coming again, being declared dead (by Richard Schechner), mean that it is over?

    I think a better term (as proved by Mr. Bel’s talk/lecture visit) is Contemporary Dance or New Dance.

    And what about the term “Performance art” ? Was this work Performance Art?
    Whats wrong with Performance Art?

    Comment by Mr Nobody — 12/6/2007 @ 6:40 pm

56. I’m actually not against “incorrect” usage of words — they’re pretty flexible and resilient anyhow.

    But I’m sort of partial to the term “postmodern” as defined by Jean-François Lyotard:

    “that which in the modern invokes the unpresentable in presentation itself, that which refuses the consolation of correct forms, refuses the consensus of taste permitting a common experience of nostalgia for the impossible, and inquires into new presentations — not to take pleasure in them, but to better produce the feeling that there is something unpresentable.”

    Also:

    “the ‘post-’ of ‘postmodern’ does not signify a movement of comeback, flashback, or feedback, that is, not a movement of repetition but a procedure in ‘ana-’: a procedure of analysis, anamnesis, anagogy, and anamorphosis that elaborates an ‘initial forgetting.’”

    I do think much of the evening could be described as performance art, but I balk at “performance art” because it is so broadly defined, tends toward the conceptual, and raises images of people putting bananas in their ears.

    Another part of the elitism of the term “avant-garde” for me comes in its assumption that it is “in front of” the rest of the population, seeking to territory, new artistic frontiers. I feel that this work is not “ahead of its time,” but instead directly, immediately and intimately born out of, connected to, and humbly made for, the world in which we find ourselves. If it appears somehow unfamiliar, I would suggest this is because it “refuses the consolation of correct forms.” It does not necessarily require an elite education, tons of money (unless you only see it at the Walker or like venue), or a insider’s knowledge to appreciate.

    I’ll take any term though, that does not relegate it to the dustbin of entertainment. However, let’s also not forget the deep connection to history and the past that several of the pieces involved.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 12/6/2007 @ 8:26 pm

57. Indeed, any term could be used, I would never stop anyone from saying any specific word about anything really, as yes they are very elastic. However,

    RE:

    “I balk at “performance art” because it is so broadly defined, tends toward the conceptual, and raises images of people putting bananas in their ears.”

    what about:

    “I balk at “dance” because it is so broadly defined, tends toward the conceptual, and raises images of people putting bananas in their ears.”

    With some of the work I don’t see a difference at all. Maybe the inclusive’ness of both terms reinforces that both are mutually inclusive of the other; it feels like this argument is tautological. On the other hand, i’m sure many practitioners would never call their own work one term or the other, I’m sure that there would be some practioners that would place their work under both terms.

    Also, I have been endowed with such knowledge that the term Postmodern Dance (could be characterized) as a movement in the 1960s and 1970s; a form that is not over, but the work of people who have continued to explore and tend to invoke both Modern dance forms AND Postmodern Dance forms are generally categorized as a part of the ‘Contemporary Dance (movement) .

    Anyone?

    Comment by Mr Nobody — 12/6/2007 @ 8:47 pm

58. Thank you Mr Nobody for clarifying the terminology. My knowledge is unfortunately too limited when it comes to dance movements and dance history.

    Also, you may balk at the term “dance” for the reasons above, but I don’t. If indeed there is no difference (or so little), then let’s abandon the search for correct terminology and wallow in the practices instead. What did they do and how did it work?

    I’m hopeful that choreographers will continue to talk about their own work on this blog as I find that the most interesting and useful for my thinking about these works. (As well as others’, including my own.)

    Ms Bieringa’s piece is one in particular I am interested in thinking about because I couldn’t see it myself. In my imagination it was fascinating.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 12/6/2007 @ 9:06 pm

59. As i mentioned in the program Incandescent was attempt to witness the dance of consciousness (as performer or audience) and the dance of autonomic nervous system. The task for the participant was to jump, shake and stand in that order over a seven minute period. The group were a mixture of experienced and first time performers. They did not have to perform. They had to measure time through the doing of the set task. They stood across the space directly facing the audience. I was interested in creating a context in which both participant and audience could become aware of their minds activity as they focussed on a relatively singular series of events. An exercise in tracking ones attention. An exercise in tracking ones attention as jumper or watcher: focus, breath, physical sensation, boredom, sound, excitement, physical discomfort, joy, sweat, exhaustion. It is an experiment in endurance and decay.

    As a graduate of the Center for New Dance Development in the Netherlands…..i would say the term “new dance” has a specific time frame attached to it also 1970-1990s and relates to work born of the forms of this era; release technique, ideokinesis, contact improvisation, potentially informed by somatic studies. As a term i connect it to work coming out of central europe and NYC also….maybe that is just my skewed vision.

    “Live art” is the term used in Europe for performance art these days.
    I would say contemporary dance works well as term….because we have nothing else in this post, post, post modern era.

    I would dare to say my piece was both live art and dance. Live art because it works with a simple action over time. Dance because i am invested in the study of the body, the virtuosity of body in simple and complex movement. I was excited to have the opportunity to share this particular piece on the McGuire stage with a curtain in the context of an evening of dance. Thank you Emily and the Walker team.

    Comment by Olive Bieringa — 12/7/2007 @ 8:52 am

60. I use “avant-garde dance” because there are problems with nearly every other term out there (and perhaps there are problems with that term as well). As you all have discussed, performance art, new dance, etc, are problematic. Postmodern dance is the term used by most reviewers, but dancers generally bristle at that. “Contemporary dance” is hopelessly vague; anyone currently creating work could reasonably claim that label.
    Up until now, I had not experienced any bristling at “avant-garde”. Avant-garde, like contemporary, is a term that can refer to a particular era or simply to a general orientation; I use it in the sense of a general orientation towards experiment. (I realize that how I intend the term does not limit its potential application in my writing. . .) Frankly, I don’t give a damn about objections to its military origin. If we begin censoring etymology, we will have nothing left to say. The connection, at any rate, is metaphorical. . .
    I do write and intend to write for an audience that includes artists and intellectuals of all types, and that means that I must adopt non-prejudicial terms that have wide recognition. I don’t want to use terms that trivialize or that award primacy to various artistic movements.

    Comment by Lightsey Darst — 12/7/2007 @ 9:57 am

61. The latest posts have me wondering if maybe you can help me figure something out. Last night I was part of a cabaret honoring ancestors with Kari Tauring at the Bryant Lake Bowl. There was a singer, a dancer, a parody of a professor, and me. I talked about my beadwork and my experiences as an jingle dress dancer in the context of identity and meaning. Although the evening went well and the audience was receptive, I felt that I didn’t quite fit since I was not a ‘performer’in that I did not engage in something ‘outside’ of myself (though one could argue that singing and dancing is not outside of oneself). By that I mean there wasn’t an art form I was representing, necessarily. This got me thinking about what theatre is, what performance is, and does it matter how we see ourselves? This I think touches on this ongoing discussion on what is art, what is performance, and whether distinctions matter. As an aside, a friend of mine commented recently that she has a problem with Indians ‘performing culture’ which got me thinking further about what that could possibly mean. In my view, we can’t control how anyone perceives our work, and whether one chooses to ’share’ part of one’s culture is a different thing entirely. Terri

    Comment by Terri Yellowhammer — 12/7/2007 @ 11:02 am

62. I have also been thinking about some of the things Ms Yellowhammer brings up, particularly: what difference does intent and context make and how much can we affect them intentionally?

    I always find this kind of discussion a little hard to handle because so much seems so nebulous or indefinable: what exactly is performance? how can you tell if your intention gets across? how can you tell if you are controlling anyone’s perception of what you are doing — especially when controlling what you are doing is so complex (often we think we are giving one impression when in other people’s point of view they are getting an entirely different perception).

    As far as feeling like you don’t belong/don’t fit it, I’m familiar with that. In my case, it was a matter of expanding my definitions of what I was doing (performance) to include what I was doing. I feel that definitions about what art (dance, theater, performance art) is tend to bog down very quickly in what amounts to partisan bickering (see above discussions). When words become terms used to define positions I want to leave the room. I’m for a little more looseness in terminology and to talk instead about the practices.

    So when Ms Yellowhammer’s friend objects to Indians ‘performing culture,’ I am guessing that this objection is connected to a long history of brutality, colonization, misappropriation, objectification and general violent disrespect connected to representations of indigenous peoples around the globe. And this objections forms a boundary to my call for looseness in terminology. Sometimes people need to know what a term should not mean because of a history, use, and/or context. It is dependent, I think, on the specific contexts in which it arises. This is another reason why discussions about the dance practices are useful. The problems associated with terminology and identification are recognized as part of the equation, but do not serve to bifurcate the participants into camps of “for” and “against,”
    whether it is a question of cultural, political, or artistic identification. I think group identity is always more complex, multifaceted and nuanced than this and discussions of practice instead of identity allow this complexity to surface without predetermining the course fo the conversation.

    In regards to which, Ms Bieringa describes her piece in terms of a task, the body, and the context in which these appear. I knew this as a performer, and I know it was in the program for the audience, but what did the audience see? Mr Wirsing saw it as half of a comforting bookend; the O’Tooles saw it as boring: not dance, etc; Ms Johnson described as breathtaking and stunning, a model of simplicity for the world to emulate; etc. Not quite a Rorschach test, but still a range and little consensus. Why?

    Doesn’t this simplicity also play/screw with audience expectations and perceptions? I’m sure there must have been people who were wondering when it would change, is there all there is — above all “what does it mean?” If there’s nothing more, than what is she after? I believe, regardless of Ms Bieringa’s intentions (see: slipperiness of intention/perception) that one effect this piece must have had was to radically shift the nature of the evening (if it hadn’t already been done by the “pre”show pieces). Isn’t it possible that this piece said something about what was at stake in the evening, in the work, in the community, and in the wider world? No more bullshit, maybe. These are bodies, this is movement, this is a stage, here is a curtain, lights, this is the breath, this is the sound feet make, this is Life happening and no matter how much you paid you can’t escape the body’s material physicality — in other words here is Life, dying in front of you. There is no escape no aesthetic: it is happening here and now and to you also. Isn’t dance at its best a matter of life and death? I don’t think this piece wasn’t a representation of an abstract beauty, a narrative, an emotion, or a coded series of movement. Consciousness: witnessing and taking part, recognizing just exactly what you are. Talk about refusing the consolation of correct forms.

    Absolutely brilliant.

    Comment by Charles Campbell — 12/7/2007 @ 6:33 pm

63. What a life this thing has! I just want to add that had we had this blog 35 years ago or even 5 years ago, or say last year (was there one? I didn’t see any activity) I daresay we would not be reading posts that say this was the worst ChoreoEvening in history. I have seen of CE’s that were hard to sit through over the past 14 years and heard plenty of water cooler talk about how others felt. Yes, many used those very words in past years — “the worst EVER.”
    I am dismayed that my own colleague and friend, Gary Peterson, has written as such and without much responsible detail to back it up.

    One thing I remember from this year is meeting and hanging out with Ellena Schoop (from Kenna Sarge’s fine piece) afterwards at the Red Stag. Looking forward to her work with Maia Maiden at this summer’s Momentum in July.

    Comment by Sally Rousse — 12/13/2007 @ 12:30 am

64. Check-out the following two blogs for commentary by a couple dance critics about what we see at dance performances, what and how we remember it, and how we talk and write about it.

    “More on us curmudgeonly dance critics,” by Apollinaire Scherr, Dec. 11, 2007: http://www.artsjournal.com/foot/

    “Two’s company,” by Tobi Tobias, Dec. 11, 2007: http://www.artsjournal.com/tobias/

    Comment by Gary Peterson — 12/28/2007 @ 3:59 pm

Leave a comment: