Stirring Emotions

I think it was very bold of Arlene Croce to say in Discussing the Undiscussable that “in not reviewing Still/Here, I’m sparing myself and my readers a bad time…” (Croce 709). I’m not particularly fond of how Croce said that Bill T. Jones has put himself beyond the reach of criticism and has made his work “undiscussable.” It’s not like he choreographed the dance with bad intentions. The content about terminally ill patients is a very morose subject; one that many don’t like to talk about. That’s why I believe Jones choreographed Still/Here—to express his and others emotions toward this touchy subject in the beautiful art form of post-modern dance. It was very odd when Croce said that Jones crossed the line between theater and reality; one ” who thinks that victimhood in and of itself is sufficient to the creation of an art spectacle” (Croce 709). Who is Croce to say that Jones’ work cannot be considered art? In my opinion, art is any piece of work (i.e. visual, audio, interactive, etc.) that can evoke feelings from viewers. I can confidently say that Still/Here made my heart heavy with saddened emotions. Croce identifies Jones’ dance and others like it as a form of victim art. You shouldn’t be forced to pity the victim artists, as it is not usually a “strategy” they try to utilize. But if you do feel some type of emotion, then the victim artists have succeeded in their original intentions.

Croce goes on to say that “we have also created an art with no power of transcendence” (Croce 715). This is where I completely disagree with her. Some works of art don’t stir up strong emotions in people, but as long as it makes them think or feel in a particularly different way, that art form has transcended them from one state of mind to another. Croce brings up that our culture today is dominated by television on page 717, which I think can be extended to include all platforms of media. As I’m writing this, the Fox TV show “Red Band Society” came to mind. For those of you who don’t know what it’s about, the storyline follows a group of teenagers living together as patients in a hospital’s pediatric ward. These young kids face serious illnesses, such as cystic fibrosis, anorexia nervosa, osteosarcoma, and many other challenges that would confront any individual growing up in a hospital. I don’t believe that the the director’s/creator’s intentions were to make people pity these fictional characters. I think they just wanted to shine a light on the potential experience of teenage patients, and overall make viewers more aware and considerate of the authentic struggles that people encounter.

Turning back to Still/Here, I appreciate that there are artists today who will take the courageous step to make art that is highly controversial. Discussing life-threatening illnesses in the way that Jones did seems like an extremely difficult task to take on. He “employed a blend of theater, movement, spoken words, music, and larger-than-life video images to tell a tale of the struggle to survive with dignity” (Allen). When Jones ceased to recognize that there are no boundaries in art, that’s when the mind can truly reveal itself through free expression. In Jones’ case, that would be the choreography of post-modern dance after disregarding all the naysayers and critics of “victim art.”