2 thoughts on “Dance Review of “The Abandonment of Sita” at Asia Society”
The author of this article, Brian Seibert, follows “Feldman’s Model of Criticism” in this dance review of Kapila Venu in ‘The Abandonment of Sita’ at Asia Society. Feldman’s Model of Criticism has a format consisting of descriptions, analysis, interpretations, and evaluations, in that order. The first few paragraphs of Seibert’s critique are strictly descriptions without any sign of personal emotion. He talks about the story behind the dance and his surroundings in the theatre. Descriptions are supposed to be as objective as possible, so Seibert followed this well. Next, Seibert transitioned into analysis. This is when the author assumes more knowledge than description (Oliver 81). So, for Seibert, this would be when he talks about the style of the dance and how it was “stationary”. The few following paragraphs of that statement are the analysis. Afterward is the interpretation. I know that the two paragraphs prior to the final one are the interpretative ones because of Seibert’s use of diction: “saavy”, “poignant”, and “I sensed”. The interpretation is where author’s explain their emotions that they felt throughout the performance, and Seibert did just that in this critique. Lastly is the evaluation. Here is where I feel Seibert could have done a little more. I feel that his last paragraph (“What surprised me most was the huge emotional impact ….”) is his evaluation because of his frank statements. He writes, “She [Kapila Venu] made that sadness felt [in the performance]”. I can tell that he is trying to point out a strength of her performance, which is one of the key point to do in an evaluation.
Overall, Seibert does follow “Feldman’s Model of Criticism”. I am sure that most critics do as well due to the fact that the few critiques I have skimmed over have mostly followed this flexible outline.
I agree with Joshua above about how this review of “The Abandonment of Sita” by Brian Seibert follows the model of Edmund Feldman for reviewing a dance performance. The author of this article first gives a brief introduction about the cultural significance in the Indian tradition of the whole story, proof that he must have done research before attending the performance, just like Oliver says in “Preparation” (pg. 71). There follows a description of the dance, rich of details and focus on merely visual experiences: “Behind her onstage were three drummers, providing accompaniment that for dramatic pacing and intensity” (Seibert). By simply presenting a few insights of the visual aspects of the performance, with little or no analysis, Seibert follows the philosophy of critic David Vaughn presented in Oliver’s book “You try to keep your visual imagination open while you are watching and not let any conscious thinking interfere with the process of receiving all these stimuli…” (Vaughn qtd. in Oliver 71). This concept is particularly important and useful for people who are trying to decide whether or not to go watch the performance and are reading the review for this particular purpose; it allows them to get an objective sense of the dance without any bias.
The review then proceeds with analysis of the dance as a whole, of the “relationship between form and content” (Oliver 70), for example when Seibert focuses on one of the dancers’ upper body motion and notices how the change of style of this movement impacted the overall mood.
Finally, the interpretation and evaluation sort of mixed: emotion played a central role for Seibert, and it was emotion itself that was the final shaper out of the whole dance, becoming the meaning and byproduct of the performance at the same time.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
The author of this article, Brian Seibert, follows “Feldman’s Model of Criticism” in this dance review of Kapila Venu in ‘The Abandonment of Sita’ at Asia Society. Feldman’s Model of Criticism has a format consisting of descriptions, analysis, interpretations, and evaluations, in that order. The first few paragraphs of Seibert’s critique are strictly descriptions without any sign of personal emotion. He talks about the story behind the dance and his surroundings in the theatre. Descriptions are supposed to be as objective as possible, so Seibert followed this well. Next, Seibert transitioned into analysis. This is when the author assumes more knowledge than description (Oliver 81). So, for Seibert, this would be when he talks about the style of the dance and how it was “stationary”. The few following paragraphs of that statement are the analysis. Afterward is the interpretation. I know that the two paragraphs prior to the final one are the interpretative ones because of Seibert’s use of diction: “saavy”, “poignant”, and “I sensed”. The interpretation is where author’s explain their emotions that they felt throughout the performance, and Seibert did just that in this critique. Lastly is the evaluation. Here is where I feel Seibert could have done a little more. I feel that his last paragraph (“What surprised me most was the huge emotional impact ….”) is his evaluation because of his frank statements. He writes, “She [Kapila Venu] made that sadness felt [in the performance]”. I can tell that he is trying to point out a strength of her performance, which is one of the key point to do in an evaluation.
Overall, Seibert does follow “Feldman’s Model of Criticism”. I am sure that most critics do as well due to the fact that the few critiques I have skimmed over have mostly followed this flexible outline.
I agree with Joshua above about how this review of “The Abandonment of Sita” by Brian Seibert follows the model of Edmund Feldman for reviewing a dance performance. The author of this article first gives a brief introduction about the cultural significance in the Indian tradition of the whole story, proof that he must have done research before attending the performance, just like Oliver says in “Preparation” (pg. 71). There follows a description of the dance, rich of details and focus on merely visual experiences: “Behind her onstage were three drummers, providing accompaniment that for dramatic pacing and intensity” (Seibert). By simply presenting a few insights of the visual aspects of the performance, with little or no analysis, Seibert follows the philosophy of critic David Vaughn presented in Oliver’s book “You try to keep your visual imagination open while you are watching and not let any conscious thinking interfere with the process of receiving all these stimuli…” (Vaughn qtd. in Oliver 71). This concept is particularly important and useful for people who are trying to decide whether or not to go watch the performance and are reading the review for this particular purpose; it allows them to get an objective sense of the dance without any bias.
The review then proceeds with analysis of the dance as a whole, of the “relationship between form and content” (Oliver 70), for example when Seibert focuses on one of the dancers’ upper body motion and notices how the change of style of this movement impacted the overall mood.
Finally, the interpretation and evaluation sort of mixed: emotion played a central role for Seibert, and it was emotion itself that was the final shaper out of the whole dance, becoming the meaning and byproduct of the performance at the same time.
Sara Camnasio