Not getting it/not liking it; where's the line?

[Balletaime]

For years, I have been trying to 'get' Martha Graham.  I have made an effort to put my prejudices aside---so, I have been trying to 'get it'.  I can honestly say that after all my efforts---I don't like it.

Don't feel lonely atm711, Fokine who was a great choreographer also 'din't get it'.

In my opinion there is much too much preasure to get it, to conform to the prevailing taste set by the knowledgable and the critics.

I'm not saying that you should always stick to what you like, once in a while try something new. But being comfortable with what you like seems to me a good place to be.

[Alexandra]

I think that the programming of serious dance work is sometimes to blame.  Outisde of the biggest cities, when there is a mixed bill, a single Balanchine comes first.  There, in splendid isolation is this genuflection to "art," with appropriate polite applause.  This is followed by something familiar (which alludes more directly to popular culture) by Tharp,  Caniparoli, Stroman , etc.  You can feel the  audience heating up.  Hey, we understand this.  We are meant to leave the theater feeling good, with most of the people around us talking about how much they enjoyed the later works. 

An all-Balanchine program, showing the range of feeling, style, and visual images that this choreography can yield, seems to serve Balanchine better than the isolated work.  Miami's Program II last season, with Ballo della Regina, Stravinsky Violin Concerto, and Stars and Stripes, is an example of this.  It produced a lot of enthusiasm and post-curtain chatter.  Granted, these are "popular" Balanchine works.  But people were given the time -- and a certain amount of comparative context -- to observe and learn about Balanchine in a variety of musical styles.  And it seems to have worked -- that time, anyway.

Bart, I think this is a very important observation; I hope all the marketing people who read this board see it! There used to be the appetizer-entree-dessert type of programming, but now I think you're right -- it's changed to "let's do the art and get it over with" piece/our new pop culture piece/something really really popular. The whole issue of pop dance and ballet is a bit away from the thrust of this thread, so I won't go into that further, but if a company wants to be taken as a serious ballet company, then there are ways to program serious works and make them appealing -- as you've mentioned above.

One way NOT to do it is something the Kennedy Center has done in opera twice this season, and that is to bill new or near-new operas as "tuneful" when they're mostly recitative "musical dramas" or "plays." The audience who came looking to be entertained -- as it had been invited to do -- was not happy. One reviewer reported that a good quarter of the audience at one opening was out the door at intermission. They may not have "gotten it," but they weren't properly prepared to do so.

On the "not getting it" point, I was rereading this thread from the beginning, and Paul Parish had some good comments, I thought, on works in other art forms that didn't touch him when he first encountered them, but did later on (it's the last post on the first page) and I think that's important to remember too. There are things that appeal to us at different ages as well as different stages of our balletgoing and the investment we make in it.

(It took me years to get Graham. I persisted because I felt if someone was considered one of the great choreographers in history then I felt I had to understand why. Part of the "where's the line" question to me is the difference between not liking and not getting. Unless "getting it" is a necessary condition of "liking it"? Some people may well feel that iit is. I can look at something and say, "yes, that's good, but I never want to see it again." To me, there's a difference.)

[Ari]

Part of the "where's the line" question to me is the difference between not liking and not getting.  Unless "getting it" is a necessary condition of "liking it"?  Some people may well feel that iit is.  I can look at something and say, "yes, that's good, but I never want to see it again." To me, there's a difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think this is actually two different things: liking it without getting it (is it possible?) and disliking it while getting it.

I certainly think it's possible to like something without getting it. After all, lots of people respond positively to great art without understanding why what they're seeing/hearing/reading is great. Or is it just that they're incapable of articulating why they like it, but they actually "get it" on a deeper, subverbal level? I know that part of the thrill for me of reading great criticism is the experience of having my formerly confused feelings, pro or con, brought out into the clear by lucid explanation.

[Alexandra]

I think that's a good point, Ari. I think what you said about "liking it without getting it" is very true. We DO get it; we just can't articulate what we get yet I also enjoy reading someone who really "gets" an artist who's new to me, or whose secrets I have not yet unlocked.

[carbro]

. . . Paul Parish had some good comments, I thought, on works in other art forms that didn't touch him when he first encountered them, but did later on (it's the last post on the first page). . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's the last post on the first page for many readers, but I'm still on the first page, having set my preference for 30 posts per page.

Paul's post is number 15 on this thread.

[Jack Reed]

Oh, yes, Balletaime! Resist pressure and prevailing taste and all of that! Those people may be right in the larger picture, or something, or not, but if they're not helping you where you are, then you and they are a wrong combination even so. The critics who thrill Ari (and me!), the ones who help us get to the next step in our thinking, from confusion to clarity, for example, are the ones to pay attention to.