Paul Taylor in Philly

[Ray]

I just heard from a friend who saw the Taylor program here in Philly at the Annenberg Center at U Penn. With her permission, I reproduce her comments below, anonymously (the program was Changes, Lines of Loss, and Esplanade); I'm curious about reactions to them. (Just to give you context: she writing from a gay, very politically progressive place):

"Paul Taylor was . . . an exercise in extremes. There were three pieces, two intermissions. The first was from this year and it was TERRIBLE. Oh god, it STUNK, was totally didactic, etc. It was this bitter, jealous, small-minded 60s-themed (all dancers in crappy pseudo-hippy gear) thang set to the music of the Mamas and the Papas. It stunk. The thesis of the dance was: the 60s thought they were so great but they weren't, and drugs are bad for you. The second piece was from last year and it was only just BAD. It was called Lines of Loss and it was about being old. It too was characterized by bitterness and jealousy. The best bit was a bit that explained, in long, didactic detail, the fruitlessness and surfacy self-obsession of homosexual love. Awesome [the writer is being sarcastic here]. But then the last piece was Esplanade, which is delightful -- like watching Singin in the Rain -- and the poor dancers, who had dragged themselves through the first two pieces, hurled themselves into it and I was charmed. So it wasn't a total waste of an evening."

[carbro]

Thanks, Ray, and thank your friend.

Newcomers can often open our jaded or biased eyes, and I will try to remember your friend's reaction to Lines of Loss next time I see it. I don't have a particularly high opinion of that work, either, but I saw it as an anti-war statement, the male duet illustrating how soldiers are strongly bonded by the emotional intensity of battle. There may be less there than I saw -- it wouldn't be the first time.

[Leigh Witchel]

It reminds me of a similar experience I had with an educated friend seeing one of the 19th century classics for the first time. He found the language stilted and hopelessly old-fashioned - it just wasn't for him. I've seen Changes as done by SF Ballet. I didn't hate it, but it's not great Taylor - it's one of his pieces to popular music like Black Tuesday or Blades of Grass (sorry - I'm on a bus to DC and may have totally blown the title.) Is it wrong to say, "This just isn't your cup of tea." though? I'm not sure that either she or Taylor should change in some way.

[Ray]

It reminds me of a similar experience I had with an educated friend seeing one of the 19th century classics for the first time. He found the language stilted and hopelessly old-fashioned - it just wasn't for him. I've seen Changes as done by SF Ballet. I didn't hate it, but it's not great Taylor - it's one of his pieces to popular music like Black Tuesday or Blades of Grass (sorry - I'm on a bus to DC and may have totally blown the title.) Is it wrong to say, "This just isn't your cup of tea." though? I'm not sure that either she or Taylor should change in some way.

Of course, but I still think it's interesting to hear the perspective of someone whose experience of Taylor doesn't start from the movement, per se, as most of ours would. So here's a more provocative question: Are we, as relatively well eye-trained dancegoers, more liable to cut choreographers too much narrative/conceptual slack if we like their movements/dancers? Or should we be bothered that well-educated people like my friend have a very small framework of associations for appreciating movement and its context, its lineage, its allusions?

[bart]

Ray, I was struck by the way your friend -- untrained in dance and, just as important, in ways of thinking and talking about movement -- focuses on the content of the ballet she liked least.

Some of my acquaintances -- the people who go to one or two dance performances every few years -- seem to want to find something recognizable that they can latch onto and connect with the rest of their cultural experience, often based more in movies and television drama. Another aspect of some performances they seem to recognize (be comfortable with?) is bravura technique: the big jumps, lifts, striking acrobatics.

carbro, I really appreciate your comments ...

Newcomers can often open our jaded or biased eyes, and I will try to remember your friend's reaction to Lines of Loss next time I see it. [ ... ] There may be less there than I saw -- it wouldn't be the first time

I've found that sometimes I dig myself into a hole of looking at something in one way only -- so much so that I don't even pay attention to things that don't fit my preconceptions. Talking to people who care less (and, I suppose, know less) can actually be quite enlightening.

You refer to the experience of There's less there than meets the eye. For me, however, it's often the opposite. I am sometimes overly critical and picky. I can fixate on something that seems wrong, awkward, derivative, cliched, etc. This sometimes sours my feelings about the entire experience. Occasionally, an acquaintance's praise for a performance or dancer has actually jolted me, forcing me up to recognize (to "see") qualities that are quite beautiful or interesting.

[Leigh Witchel]

I think I cut some slack not just because I like the dancers/movement but for me the big reason is I know the body of work. Because there's Last Look or Big Bertha, I overlook The Sorceror's Sofa.

Looking at your friend's comments again, it wouldn't hurt her to think that maybe she's being a touch dismissive of someone with a career that's probably longer than her life? What else doesn't she give a second look? That's one thing I think I have learned from reviewing - be very wary of dismissing anyone's work outright that you've seen only once.

[Ray]

I think I cut some slack not just because I like the dancers/movement but for me the big reason is I know the body of work. Because there's Last Look or Big Bertha, I overlook The Sorceror's Sofa.

Looking at your friend's comments again, it wouldn't hurt her to think that maybe she's being a touch dismissive of someone with a career that's probably longer than her life? What else doesn't she give a second look? That's one thing I think I have learned from reviewing - be very wary of dismissing anyone's work outright that you've seen only once.

True enough, yet I don't think she's dismissing PT's oeuvre: I read her comments as very much critiquing--and, in the case of Esplanade, praising--specific works. I think too she'd go to see PT again; Esplanade suggested to her that there was a master at work here, and I think she was aware that the works she didn't like were later works that may or may not be representative of the larger body of work.

But the larger question remains: why should a "naive" viewer cut an artist slack if they're put off by an aspect of the work or performance? What's the line that an artist might cross for a viewer to reject her or him? (We've discussed this in other guises: Tudor's cruelty, Balanchine's misogyny, Robbins's disloyalty re McCarthy hearings, etc.) Is this another example of people's "bad education" in re viewing dance? That is, would most viewers put up with more questionable content in other works of art like, say, a film?

I hope this won't turn into a conversation about "being PC" or not--i.e., I don't think my friend views are dogmatic; she's speaking to what moves her as a viewer, for better or for worse.

[bart]

But the larger question remains: why should a "naive" viewer cut an artist slack if they're put off by an aspect of the work or performance?

Good question. There's also the matter of whether one can realistically (or even fairly) expect someone who has not liked a work to keep coming back to reevaluate their first response. This would take a level of curiosity that most people in the audience don't have. Most of us here on Ballet Talk would be willing to return to a ballet performance for a second or third look. Would we make the same investment in time and money for every art form?