One thought on “Dance Review “Nameless Forest””

1. Seibert’s review of Nameless Forest loosely follows Feldman’s Model of Criticism, taking more liberties because it is a dance review and not a formal criticism. His writing contains all four components: description, analysis, his interpretation, and evaluation, though in highly imbalanced proportions. Description dominates his review, as Feldman sets the scene, describing the visual imagery, auditory fragments, and scenarios and movement among the performers and audience participants. He uses varied and vivid action words to enhance his description: “They’re posed and positioned, serenaded and slapped, made participants in rituals for which they do not know the rules.”
   Seibert’s analysis is less obvious, though he constantly draws on background knowledge to give a context to components of the performance such as the set installations, and to draw connections to other pieces, such as audience participation in Moss’s previous work Kisaeg Becomes You. These comparisons give more meaning to the description of the performance. His interpretation of what he sees in integrated throughout the review – giving meaning to the enigmatic demonstrations and emotion to the performance. One effective interpretation is his comparison of the dancers to “a lost tribe and disturbed children,” a very particular explanation. Seibert’s analysis and interpretation of the performance are not very thorough, though their presence enriches the reader’s takeaway from the review.
   What is most lacking is Seibert’s evaluation of the performance, which briefly closes up the article. The evaluation does not encompass the piece as a whole, and quickly denotes it as unaffecting and “too safe” with little evidence to support his position. Though his point is clear, he could have elaborated more to consider aspects of the piece beyond audience participation.

Comments are closed.