Justin Jones was excellent in the role of patient ballboy/sushi chef/custodian of the games.The boys from Brooklyn– Matt Citron and Chris Yon– were completely great: Matt’s voice in the beginning is as sincere as the butoh-baseball ending by Neal Medlyn, whose intriguing bio includes performances with unicorns. and being the Paris Hilton of Performance Art (wow, last week Britney Spears, this week Paris Hilton. This blog has all the train wreck blondes. And don’t tell me to leave them alone, Campbell, because I never will).
David Neuman’s feedforward has tons going for it, first and foremost a fantastic, versatile, talented group of performers–movers and musicians alike. Let me just say right now that the use of brass instruments is highly undervalued in dance and theater.
Lily Baldwin was elfin and graceful and then fully adept at delivering text, an unexpected talent very appreciated. Kennis Hawkins was cast as what we used to call an East Block athlete, tall and horse-y, but surprising in her speed and lithesome grace.
There was a lot going on, many standout moments, mostly via the text. It would be less without the dance but the dance would be nothing without the soundscore and the text. Except for “ Oh, I think, it’s like, it’s like, like, it’s like, I think………” (I think this is the bad part, or maybe it’s just a terribly ineloquent athlete, vs, the scripted, cliche mouthpieces we heard earlier).
The MaGuire Theater looked gorgeous stripped and bare. The minimal sets (numbers, playing field tape lines) are just right: too much and there’s no room for my imagination; too little and I feel the creators didn’t care enough, ripped me off.
feedforward made me think about my own sporting past and whether it makes a difference if a kid opts for team sports or individual sports. Having grown up doing both (soccer and tennis) I have to say that I still feel a sweet tension between dancing in an ensemble (love it) and in solo roles (love it, but also cringe about it).
It’s just so good to just sit there and be entertained, without much responsibility. I have been feeling literally nauseated all week reading what I find meaningless, self-reverent dialogue about audience manipulation and the purpose of art. It exists, we walk into the building, we sit down and we see it. We spend 60-90 minutes there and we leave. And of course it’s manipulative. Maybe we should look at the manipulative. I feel pretty confident that I can manipulate the word and meaning of manipulative. blah
Thankfully, Neuman’s works have always presented us with an engaging balance of personal and universal thought. There’s humor, nature, brains, and beauty, and plenty of time for my mind to wander, which it did and that never bothers me and no can control it.
Regarding the Leave Britney Alone:
Yes if Ms Wampler’s career goal was to make it big in the entertainment world, then she should just comment about Britney like that Chris fellow on Youtube (”LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!”), rather than spending her money and time creating (wonderful in my opinion) High Art Trash like this (again, wonderful ) show. – Comment by E Lynch — 1/26/2008 @ 9:29 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDDEhLw1PVI
Regarding being entertained without much responsibility:
Isn’t it okay to find other things in art besides entertainment and then talk about them? I think giving up responsibility can be a wonderful vacation but it can also have unfortunate consequences.
Comment by Charles Campbell — February 1, 2008 @ 11:42 am
What are the unfortunate consequences of letting art happen? I bring my brain everywhere.
Comment by Sally Rousse — February 1, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
The unfortunate consequences happen when we give up responsibilities, not when we let art happen. But what would not letting art happen be?
I think bringing your brain is a responsible thing. I also believe there are many ways of responding to art and that this forum is as legitimate a place to continue responsive dialog as any.
Comment by Charles Campbell — February 1, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
I’m going to try again: what are the unfortunate consequences? The actual “items” or situations that might occur if you just accepted what is going without inserting yourself so much? (Your self is there, already present and inserted. Please try to resist obvious joke here, unless it involves Britney Spears). Still performing.
Comment by Sally — February 1, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Me, too: the specific unfortunate consequences of giving up responsibility? I’m not saying anything weird or complex — lots of bad things.
For example:
1. I would consume whatever I felt like and soon become unhealthy(er).
2. My kids wouldn’t get fed, bathed, clothed, rested, or educated, and probably would get hit by a bus.
3. I would have even less say about the way the various communities I belong to function: social, artistic, political, national, global, etc.
But you asked what might occur if I just accepted what is going on without inserting myself so much. Which is a different thing than what I said. And I am having trouble relating this question to my point about entertainment without responsibility. So I can only say that I agree: I am already present and inserted. And my response is my response, and I posted some of it already. So what would inserting myself less be? The consequences of that depend on what it means — I don’t know how to insert myself any more or less than I do.
Maybe I misinterpreted your comment about being entertained without much responsibility. But to me it seemed to suggest that you found feedforward less prone to provoke the type of discussion that you found nauseating last week. That somehow it was an entertainment that did not require responsibility (however we define that).
If this is so, I respectfully disagree. I think that it does a disservice to Mr Neumann’s work to suggest that it is somehow without a substance that can be approached intellectually as well as emotionally — or critically as well as uncritically — or responsibly as well as irresponsibly — or as entertainment as well as…whatever the opposite of that is. I feel that these perspectives can all come up with interesting responses and that there is plenty of material in this piece to justify all sorts of responses.
Comment by Charles Campbell — February 1, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
BoooooooooooOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring(Lisa, please reprint you comment, I erased it by accident! It was something like :
BoooooooooooOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring
I found this piece so very BOring……….
I apologize. Again, please, please resubmit your comment!
Comment by lisa — February 2, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Okay. Then what?
Comment by Charles Campbell — February 2, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
I think some words got put into mouths here.
I am not someone who is very interested in hashing things out, blogging ad finitum, until the winner gets the last word.
Not a review-reader myself, I am not accustomed to writing or reading much about people’s creations, but I am trying, stretching. It can feel like standing in judgement, and who am I to do that? And it’s kind of scary to have it all down in permanent, archived form, too. The experience develops and I remember and digest things days later. What I write, that isn’t how I continue to feel, but I don’t continue to write when/if it’s changed for me because I’m pretty sure no one is that interested how I feel, how my views might have changed! When I first saw Claude Wampler’s piece in March, 2007, I thought, “How dumb: A video!” But after a week, a few months, I considered it one of the best shows I experienced in 2007. And now, nearly a year later, not so much for 2008.
I’d rather discuss the performance, the performers, who rarely get talked about, the collaborating artists whose work is onstage (set and costume designers). I don’t want to talk about the intention or what we imagine the intentions to be, unless we are close to the the source. If a creator makes a statement like “This piece is about _____” then, yes, we have to hold him/her to that intention. Hopefully people have stopped trying to make pieces “about” things. I can see being “inspired by” something. Better to just write literally about something.
Mainly, what is there to talk about? What it looked/felt like, what it conjured up? I know these are loaded questions and that there is tons to talk about. But just dust off the copy of Strunk & White, please, wouldya?
The verbosity can be enlightening, but mostly it puts me off my art. And reading the “gloves off” posts last week did disturb me. Any time the word “intellectual” is used an alarm goes off and it triggers another word: pretentious. I liked “feedforward” very, very much. I won’t compare it to any other Out There show. I fell in and out of love with all of them at many points. And I don’t think the word “entertaining” has to mean it has less value, or lets us off-the-hook in our responsibility to duly process it.
Comment by sally Rousse — February 2, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
I must second Sally. I know as bloggers we’re supposed to be thrilled when people try to bite each other via the comments section, but I found the whole thing disturbing–so much venom and misunderstanding. And, yes, that desire to win, to get in the last word.
My opinion also changes over time. I try to put on the page something I can live with. I’d still go with what I said about Wampler. I can see what the more complimentary viewers saw/felt/got out of it, but it continues not to be what I got out of it. –Oh no, I’m trying to get the last word. I’ll stop.
I wouldn’t want to forbid any type of response. But I see that sometimes we dissolve into showing each other our sensibilities–using our interpretation of the art as an ego boost.
Comment by Lightsey Darst — February 3, 2008 @ 7:21 am
So we all agree that the piece was entertaining, emotional, and intellectually stimulating? Lightsey felt like it was distracted, Charles felt it was too long.
For me, it was one of my favorite works of all time; right up there with Meg Stuarts’ “Forgeries Love and Other Matters”2005,6 and Wooster Groups’ “House/Lights” 2003. Because I’m only 25.
Comment by Mr/Ms Lynch — February 3, 2008 @ 11:01 am
I dug the show. It played with a lot of ideas that I’m pretty sold on…
I’m a little confused by the conversation on this board. It somewhat reminds me of my undergrad experience at the University–being “responsible” was a philosophically weighty term–performances were referred as “deadly”. I think this type of conversation kills possibilities rather than opens them.
I work at an art center for disabled adults. Our method of creating work is always about saying, “YES… AND…”
I guess I feel great works is of great consequence. But there has to be room for all types of work in the “conversation”…. deadly or lovely or whatever.
I did like hearing the Walker guard singing in the galleries: This is propaganda, you know, you know…
more on my BLOG!!!
http://www.scottycruz.wordpress.com
Comment by Scotty Reynolds — February 3, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Maybe I am misconstruing the tenor of this forum, but I felt that there has been some good conversations beginning — I did not see venom. Things do get a little heated when passions are raised, and I also agree last week’s blogs had several fiery voices, but I found that interesting: how often does an artwork make such a visceral impact in this post-Duchamp age?
I must disagree with Ms Darst’s assertion of our glee at dental assault. And, hopefully, there is no “winning,” no last word. It’s a conversation. Isn’t the solution to misunderstanding more conversation, not less?
And my apologies to Ms Rousse. I was not intending to put words into your mouth (if you were referring to my postings). I know you are perfectly able to speak for yourself on whatever topic you choose.
To clarify my part, I have little interest in the intentions of the artist — they are as opaque to me as to anyone else. But I am interested in how these various works function, how it is put together, how it lives (or dies) in our minds and bodies, and enjoy engaging in that discussion.
It is interesting to be in the position of a “reviewer” — which I am new to as well. I agree: we all change our minds and when it gets written down it seems permanent. But that is what is so useful about this blog forum: we can change our minds and add it to the mix the next day/week/month.
Comment by Charles Campbell — February 3, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Yes, and
it is also fun to relate the Tino Sehgal to the David Neumann!
Comment by Charles Campbell — February 3, 2008 @ 1:23 pm