How much explanation do you want?
Posted 06 April 2001 - 06:53 PM
Everything should be there on stage and in the pit (or the loudspeakers) and should speak for itself and to me directly. Program notes are useful in the same way that 'people watching' or chatting with those in neighboring seats can be useful, in filling the time between arriving at the venue and when the curtain goes up.
The impact of a performance on a person in the audience is an event in itself. Sometimes reading the program notes afterwards can be illuminating—finding out what the choreographer was setting out to convey and how she attempted it and comparing that against what one actually heard and saw.
Cargill wrote: “And a ballet like Harliquinade would certainly be richer if the audience knew some of the background of the Commedia del arte characters.” Not being familiar with “Harliquinade” (something I can say about close to 100% of the standard repertory) I will bow to Cargill's greater knowledge. However opera, an art form which has roots in commedia dell’arte, is not measurably enriched by knowing who Pataloon, Harlequin, Brigehella and others were. “Ariadne auf Naxos” the Hofmannsthal and Strauss collaboration, juxtaposed opera and commedia dell’arte conventions but with such audacity and truth that all you need to know is what you can see and hear during the performance.
"Happy are the fiery natures which burn themselves out,
and glory in the sword which wears away the scabbard:
Writing of Pauline Viardot
[This message has been edited by Ed Waffle (edited April 06, 2001).]
Posted 06 April 2001 - 07:32 PM
Of course, choreographers have the right to judge how they want their work framed -- or not -- for an audience, to decide what's appropriate, what's useful etc. As it happens, I don't think anyone believes that a ballet (or opera) should in any way depend on some external, explanatory apparatus. But if a program note can help prepare an audience to see or hear better, why not? There seems to be a lingering suspicion that it's somehow getting in the way of the audience member's pure, spontaneous response -- but ultimately there's no such thing as a pure, spontaneous response. Someone who truly "knows" nothing (hasn't read reviews, hasn't seen other works by the same choreographer, etc.) will simply import knowledge or assumptions they have from other fields and experiences to the experience of the performance. Of course notes can be done badly -- ANYTHING can be done badly -- but they can also be done well and even sharpen people's perceptions. (And for the live theater most people want their perceptions sharpest when they are watching the work, not just trying to remember it.)
A more general thought. In many respects we live in a "culture" (hate the word) that does a lot to blunt people's capacity to respond to anything that requires a real capacity to perceive. Whether we're looking at something we consider art or entertainment -- literally, most of us don't know how to watch, how to listen, even how to respond viscerally etc. I think that's one of the things that has to be taken into account by theater/music/dance directors of all kinds even when they are hoping audiences will "just" respond to what's on stage etc. A great work of art should be an education in perception in and of itself, but it needs a context in which it can be perceived in the first place. Leigh Witchel is making (I think) a more pragmatic and modest point, but it seems to me partly linked to these larger questions...
[This message has been edited by Drew (edited April 06, 2001).]
Posted 06 April 2001 - 09:27 PM
Posted 10 April 2001 - 07:49 AM
If its a story then I read the program notes before. If it isn't, I prefer to watch, draw my own conclusions and after, I want as much information as possible. I'll often do a little research, if applicable, just to glean a little more insight into the motivation behind a piece. A choreographer is influenced by so many things, I find it intriguing to discover what those things are-- determining what inspired them to create what I just experienced.
I like there to be a lot of information in the program. There is still a lot of art/literature/etc/etc that I haven't experienced, I don't want to be excluded from an 'in' reference because of my ignorance! Teach me, please! I want to know! ;)
So I'm sorry Julip, but you might find me a little frustrating. I don't like to think that what I'm watching is there just because the choreographer felt like it. Art for the sake of art. Dance for the sake of dance. I may be being a snob, but I like to think theres a bit more intellect behind a piece and wouldn't be able to help being disappointed to find there wasn't. (not suggesting at all there's no intellect behind a piece that appears to have no deep 'meaning'. Please don't take that the wrong way)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
members, guests, anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases: