Write of Reply

[Katharyn]

well, thats about as clever as my titles are going to get this evening as pepsi supplies are low...

I have followed with a mixture of incredulity and amusement a series of two articles published by Dance Australia. In the first, an article/review by James Ferguson, the Sydney Dance Company's new work 'underland' (choreographed by Stephen Petronio) was absolutely ripped to shreds. I have never read anything quite in the same spirit. Here's a few snippets of Mr Ferguson's pearls of wisdom, hopelessly taken out of context for maximum impact ;).

'It is really high time people realised... that dance, being a non-verbal medium, is unsuited to the transmission of ideas'

'When dance shows try to "transmit" ideas, they at best make tokenistic visual references to politically correct attitudes assumed to be shared by their audiences. These flimsy references might inspire cosy feelings of self righteousness... but fail to say anything worthwhile. It is nothing more than ideological name-dropping'.

'A grand jete is a grand jete is a grand jete. All we can do is admire it for itself'.

'any dance move at all, has no social or political meaning...'

He then goes on to rip apart the choice of music (Nick Cave being 'a second rate Leonard Cohen, trying to redeem his misspent junky youth with his own peculiar brand of Bible-bashing'), the costuming ('costumes are for characters in story's not the serious discussion of ideas') and finishing by begging for a little bit of art for arts sake ('let the dancers dance - and let us be glad of that')

I recall reading this article out to the family because it was just so vicious.

Track to a few months later, and Graham Murphy - artistic director of the Sydney Dance Company - has bitten back. He put forth the dancer's side of the argument, particularly in relation to dance transmitting ideas and the use of costuming and music.

I can't help wondering how many other artists who've been given bad reviews wish they had this opportunity to respond! Good on Dance Australia for allowing SDC to counter what I consider an unfair attack.... But I wonder, where it will end? Will Ferguson defend his opinion in the next issue? Will this turn into a mudslinging match of biblical proportions..?

Well, unlikely... but I still found it interesting... Should column space be used for artists trying to defend their work?

[Ed Waffle]

It sounds like the kind of controversy that the editor would welcome--as long as there was space for it. After the stroke/counterstroke it may move to "Letters to the Editor" column.

However, given the astonishing crudity of the original review, as shown in the quote essentially saying that the only way to transmit ideas is through words, it simply cried out to be rebutted by someone.

What would Bach have said to that? Or Mahler? Or John Cage?

Or Merce Cunningham? Ashton?

The mind boggles.

(Whatever boggles means) :-}

[Alexandra]

Thanks for this, Katharyn. I didn't find the remarks vicious, just....well, an editorial instead of a review. His isn't a view I share, but it is shared by many. There's a school of criticism today that believes that abstract dance is superior to any other form; ergo, any other kind of dance is inferior -- plug in any words that would denote "inferior" to you: mindless, stupid, silly, childish, etc.

I wouldn't mind if the piece were a commentary on the art form in general, but I think it's out of place in a review.

The "write of reply" question is a knotty one. Criticism is a one-way street, and that offends our sense of fairness. But artists, I think, are in a no-win situation. If they write back, they not only risk offending the critic eternally but they often look petty, saying, "I am not mindless" doesn't get you very far.

We've had the situation on this forum -- and I know in the early days of alt.arts.ballet there were instances where dancers or choreographers wrote in. But they soon stopped. What can you say? "I'd like everyone to know that I was dancing on a sprained ankle" "I do too know how to create a character, but I only had 10 miniutes of rehearsal and I'd never met my partner before show time" or, "I've never read anything so stubborn, stupid and downright wrongheaded in my life. I graduated magna cum laude"?

If Graham Murphy's column was just that -- a column, not a reply defending "my friend Steve," then that could be interesting. As an editor, I'd like that.

What do others think about this? How should/can artists who feel they are unfairly criticized fight back?

[Mel Johnson]

In a world of Free Speech, a reply from a party accused of bad work should be expected, but we live in the Theater World, where such stuff is Not Done. Even if it's, "AAaa yer mudda uses mustache wax!" There should be a right to reply, short of those things for which a precedent exists, like Serge Lifar having a duel with the Marquis de Cuevas.

[Treefrog]

But doesn't this question strike at the heart of communication? No matter what the (dancer, choreographer, composer, etc...) intended to convey, if the audience doesn't perceive it, it didn't exist.

[Alexandra]

But what if some in the audience do perceive it and others, especially one who writes about it, doesn't?

And in the example Katharyn cites, the critic was trying to tell the choreographer that his approach was wrong, and that no matter how "good" the work was, it would be "bad" because it was expressionistic?

[Katharyn]

In the case of a reviewer panning a dancer or choreographer, any response from the artist just sounds like an excuse. If you put in a substandard performance then even the best of reasons doesn't alter the fact it was a substandard performance. The audience purchases its right to like or dislike a performance either through ticket price, or sitting through it without falling asleep. It is certainly not the audiences job to overlook mediocrity because the artist is having a bad night/the budget got cut/the lighting guy has bad breath... So I would definitely roll my eyes a little if i read a plaintive little response to a bad review.

So I'm not so sure this is that different... Here the writer attacks the choreographers approach to choreography and to the art of dance in general. Granted, most of what he said was ludicrous enough to warrant a response either way... But at the end of the day, wasn't the artist just defending himself (or at least Murphy defending Petriono in his absence) against the same sort of criticism levelled at anyone else putting themself in the public eye? The writer said that the show suffered from a needless chase of profundity - what can you say to that?

I should also note that the original article did not feature as a review, although it read as one.

[Katharyn]

I don't know of an elegant way to respond to criticism... I'm not convinced there is one. I suppose you just have to rise above it and prove the critic wrong on the stage.

Not to flog a cliche or anything...

[atm711]

To quote:

"A grand jete is a grand jete is a grand jete--all we can do is admire it for itself"

Apparently, he never saw a Tudor work.

[carbro]

Or even Swan Lake or Giselle!

I think he may have been venting against several whole genres of the art. As a friend once pointed out to me, you can't very well be a food critic if you're a vegetarian. I suspect Mr. Ferguson is not merely a vegetarian, but a vegan for whom Petronio's work is prime rib.

[Alexandra]

What a great analogy!!! Thanks, Carbro.

I think it's fine to have an aesthetic position. But I think you have to be careful how you wield it. To use Carbro's food example, if I go into a restaurant that says "Ribs R Us" and I find one vegetarian dish, that's fine. But if there are two ribs selections with 5 chicken, 7 fish and 8 sushi, then I'll scream. But if the guy says he's selling Ribs, and he does -- then your only job as a critic is to describe and analyze the ribs, not complain that they're not sushi.