Jump to content


"What's Wrong With Modern Dance?"


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 09:35 AM

Lisa Traiger just posted a very interesting piece in her danceviewtimes blog about modern dance -- and concert dance in general, at least that which is "edgy" or "trendy."

What's Wrong With Modern Dance?


NOTE: In the interests of thread readability, I deleted the quote originally posted -- the first paragraph of the article -- to encourage reading of the article :dunno: END NOTE

Traiger asks how modern dance can keep its audiences (educate audiences) and keep the balance between being personal work, and reaching audiences. I'm curious to know what you think -- if you don't like modern dance, why? Would you enjoy the pieces Traiger discusses? (Why or why not.) What is the path for new dance -- be it ballet or modern?

Edited by Alexandra, 02 November 2007 - 02:13 PM.
to delete a quote


#2 SanderO

SanderO

    Silver Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 621 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 10:35 AM

I don't know boo about classical ballet or modern dance. My impression having only seen a bit of both is that classical dance is more "grounded" in formalism and this makes it more comfortable to watch and more predictable. The formalism seems to lend itself to measuring a performance as well. How perfectly does she do her fouettes? But in contemporary we don't see these sorts of recognizable "things". Now this may be the point, because, it is about movement and freed from the constraints of formalism.

It's like modern architecture. We experience it and might be thrilled by the spaces, the textures,for sculptural form whatever but have no frame of reference to evaluate it except comparing it to "known" architecture style and formalism.

A modernist choreographer can certainly have a recognizable "signature", but it seems rather unlikely that this will become the basis of a larger body of work spanning many choreographers and much time, perhaps the way some movements in art (impressionism for example) have; enough to recognize the style. I see modern dance as more disorganized. And that may be a good thing in the sense that freedom is a good thing.

I do think it's hard to build audiences for modern dance and I think companies that mix it up is good thing.

As a genre I like ballet but tend to only like individual modern pieces and consider modern the "not ballet" of "serious dance" (excluding things like ballroom etc.). There is much interesting work done and do be done in modern dance.

What do I know? Nothing. This is a very provocative thread and I am looking forward to reading the comments.

#3 SandyMcKean

SandyMcKean

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 11:20 AM

I don't want to take the time to read the entire article, but from the quote provided I would guess the reviewer primarily criticizes modern dance for not finding a larger audience; but I'd be willing to bet he/she does not recommend some brilliant new idea that will solve the problem!

Anyway, what problem? Here's a data point.....last week Pilobolus performed at the University of Washington in Seattle. They were here for 3 nites (Thurs, Fri, Sat). The venue, Meany Hall, seats about 1200. All 3 performances were totally sold out.

#4 carbro

carbro

    Late Board Registrar

  • Rest in Peace
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,361 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 11:39 AM

All 3 [Pilobolus] performances were totally sold out.

Wow! Good for them!

Not sure I see Traiger's point. Both ballet and modern have more- and less-established, more- and less-renowned companies. The size of their audiences probably vary in proportion to the scope of their repute.

Tuesday night my friend marvelled at the dearth of empty seats for ABT's program featuring two pieces by Twyla Tharp. "Tharp sells," she observed. Thus, the staidest of US ballet companies appears to draw its biggest audiences when it presents a modern dance choreographer. We'll see how well they do with her new ballet, set to premiere on a mixed bill this spring at the Met, where mixed bill programs tend to draw sparse audiences.

#5 87Sigfried87

87Sigfried87

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 11:45 AM

Tough question,easy answer:Modern/contemporary dance is boring and sad.
If you go and see a classical ballet you see a story,a scenery,somebody doing precise steps,an enjoyable ensemble(choreographical and not),you see technique,you see perfect bodies doing nice movements.

If you go and see something contemporary you see: no story or a too abstract and conceptual/intellectual one,you often don't see much scenery and often dancers are wearing rags and instead of being made beautiful and nice,they are made uglier;you don't see technique but "strange" steps,often made to go against the academical technique,so they look bad made or "crooked".Then you maybe hear very boring musics by Mozart,lasting half an hour,repetitive and there's often too much pathos and sufference.The whole thing becomes oppressive and dislikeable.

An example: Guillem doing Grand Pas Classique and Wet Woman.In the first piece you see her in all of her beauty,you have Aesthetics,you have great technique,beautiful combinations of steps...You have something nice for the eye on a happy music.In the second piece you have her,dressed in rags(more or less),with the hair up like a crazy,a mad expression on her face,a bad music and a bad ensemble of classical technique with monstruos movements of contortion and pain.The recipe to make a wonderful ballerina become horrible!Which one would you like to watch tonight?The top is "Sagre du Printemps"....top of boredom and oppressiveness.

The point is that everything boring and non academical is nowadays called contemporary.There's not a precise definition.Physical theatre is considered contemporary dance.How would you consider dancers running around the stage,throwing bricks in the air and doing kind of soldiers excercises?I'd consider them runners or athletes,not dancers.Who knows...
The problem coming out is also that there's too much phylosophy behind this type of dance.People do not even like talk shows on tv if they treat too serious topics.Imagine if a person going to the theatre wants to waste time doing phylosophy watching a dance piece!

I have to add that dancing a contemporary piece is more enjoyable than watching it.Then not every choreographer is the same: i like something by Bejart,Mats Ek and Kylian very much.But if i had to choose between watching a ballet of repertoire and a contemporary gala,I'd doubtless choose the first one.

#6 87Sigfried87

87Sigfried87

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 11:47 AM

I was forgetting the long walks on stage,very deep but just people walking,and moments of stillness created by deep looks between the dancers.Just looks.... :dunno:

#7 SandyMcKean

SandyMcKean

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 12:27 PM

If you go and see something contemporary you see: no story or a too abstract and conceptual/intellectual one,you often don't see much scenery and often dancers are wearing rags and instead of being made beautiful and nice,they are made uglier;you don't see technique but "strange" steps,often made to go against the academical technique,so they look bad made or "crooked".

dancerboy,

I imagine very similar things were once said about The Ballet Russes and even Balanchine's ballets.

#8 miliosr

miliosr

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,574 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 12:39 PM

I agree with the posters who wrote that all modern dance companies aren't suffering from a lack of viewers.

I've seen the Graham, Limon (several times) and Morris companies in recent years and all of them performed in front of full or near-full houses. I think the Ailey, Cunningham and Taylor troupes can all find an audience as well. The common denominator seems to me to be that the major moderns/postmoderns -- Ailey, Cunningham, Graham, Limon, Morris, Taylor and Tharp -- all have something that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so.

#9 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 01:19 PM

Note for thread readability: I've deleted the quote in my first post after reading "I don't want to take the time to read the entire article, but from the quote provided..." in a post above :dunno: This happens every time we put up an article -- some only read the quote, which, in this case, was an opening paragraph, not a summary of the article.

Edited by Alexandra, 02 November 2007 - 02:21 PM.
clarity


#10 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 01:25 PM

Re the article:

I've seen similar reactions by people at modern dance concerts (not pop, big name events like Pilobolus, but "loft dance," the "cutting edge" work). People who want to like it, who expect to like it, and who are puzzled/unmoved/almost angry. The modern side usually bashes the audience as stupid and/or uneducated, and the "what's to like?" side will say the work is deliberately inscrutable and/or inept. Is there a way for modern dance to reach its audience while still being true to its nature?

Regarding taste, in SanderO's post above (the second post in this thread), I think he gets to the heart of many ballet fans' problem with modern dance: they're often more interested ini the dancer than the dance, or, in any case, are ,pst interested in the steps and their execution.

Editing to add a response to what milosr wrote: I agree, too, that the big names (Limon, Graham) will always have an audience -- although perhaps not outside of New York these days; at least in Washington, attendance can be spotty), but it's the smaller/newer companies that consistently have trouble finding an audience. Some of their work IS puzzling or off-putting to some, perhaps because the choreographer is still groping to express him/herself, and perhaps because the work is so new. Another perhaps -- that there is, and always will be (?) a small, devoted audience that will want to puzzle things out, but that many who walk in to taste will walk away unsatisfied.

#11 SandyMcKean

SandyMcKean

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 02:37 PM

Seems to me that a "bleeding edge" company/group has to have a certain distain for the audience in order to generate break-thru creativity. What is the audience after all (beyond being a source of funds)? Audiences are the status quo; they define current standards. To a large measure, you have to decide: please the audience, or break into new territory.

#12 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts

Posted 02 November 2007 - 03:24 PM

I think that's a good point, and well-stated, Sandy. And perhaps the result of that is that you choose to break into new territory and not worry about the audience, then you have to be willing to accept that the audience may choose to go elsewhere. BUT if you're really doing something that's interesting, the audience will come, although it will build slowly.

#13 87Sigfried87

87Sigfried87

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts

Posted 03 November 2007 - 12:55 AM

If you go and see something contemporary you see: no story or a too abstract and conceptual/intellectual one,you often don't see much scenery and often dancers are wearing rags and instead of being made beautiful and nice,they are made uglier;you don't see technique but "strange" steps,often made to go against the academical technique,so they look bad made or "crooked".

dancerboy,

I imagine very similar things were once said about The Ballet Russes and even Balanchine's ballets.


I'll give you an example.The last performance of "Le Parc" by Preljocaj here at Scala was a flop.The audience said they had seen no technique,that it was boring,there were too may walks on stage,that the music was also boring and that it was maybe too particular to be well understood and liked by the majority of the people....I was the only one who liked it and found it very enjoyable.And this was a soft contemporary piece,as it was anyway very neoclassical.Imagine what the audience would tell if they saw Sagre du Printemps for the first time in their lives.

#14 87Sigfried87

87Sigfried87

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts

Posted 03 November 2007 - 12:59 AM

I imagine very similar things were once said about The Ballet Russes and even Balanchine's ballets.


Would you consider Balanchine as a contemporary choreographer?I'd not,if not for a time question.He's a modern-classical choreographer,but still classical.So far from being contemporary in the style!

#15 bart

bart

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,320 posts

Posted 03 November 2007 - 06:56 AM

All 3 [Pilobolus] performances were totally sold out.

Tuesday night my friend marvelled at the dearth of empty seats for ABT's program featuring two pieces by Twyla Tharp. "Tharp sells," she observed.


I've seen the Graham, Limon (several times) and Morris companies in recent years and all of them performed in front of full or near-full houses. I think the Ailey, Cunningham and Taylor troupes can all find an audience as well.

This fits my own experience in recent years. And, as we've observed before, the audiences tend to be younger on average, with a higher proportion of males than at the ballet.

Look at the names listed above. Almost all are artists working at the highest level and deeply interested in integrating with the work of other serious artists (music, mise en scene, costume). In addition, Ailey, Taylor, Morris, and Tharp are familiar with ballet and have produced works that fit very well into a ballet company repertoire. Even Pilobolus connects to a level of visual wit and imagination at a very high level.

Maybe the distinction that means the most to audiences is not the old modern-versus-classical. Maybe it's dance that elevates versus dance that merely stimulates the senses.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):