http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/arts/dance/megan-v-spenglers-flutter-opens-at-the-chocolate-factory.html?ref=dance
Wendy Oliver places heavy emphasis upon the four cornerstones of the Feldman model of dance criticism–description, analysis, interpretation, and evaluation. Although the merits of such a model are clear, particularly for students who have little-to-no experience critiquing dance, the model does tend to introduce a rigidity to a critique that may be better off without it. Just as with dance, or any other art form, it is not always beneficial to approach the work with a specific form or system in mind. Sometimes it is best to just let the ideas flow and exist as they are.
This was the conclusion I came to as I read Brian Seibert’s review of Megan V. Sprenger’s ‘Flutter’. It seemed to be very loosely written and not once did I get the sense that Seibert had been following any set guidelines as he wrote. The flow of ideas was very organic and natural, largely focusing on the individual performers and the nature of their interactions. What struck me upon finishing his critique–and also what led me to make the observations I did about the potential harmfulness of structure–was that it left me wanting more–but in an effective way. Oliver writes in her introduction to the ‘Dance Critiques’ chapter that professional critics for newspapers “often write about current performances in order to describe and evaluate them for potential ticket buyers” (67). It was thus that I found Seibert’s review to be very successful for the simple fact that it made me want to find out more about this performance–perhaps even by way of going out and buying a ticket to see it for myself.
Seibert incorporates just the right amount and type of description that Oliver stresses in her discussion of dance critiquing. Oliver suggests the use of strong and varied action verbs, colorful adjectives and adverbs, and the active voice (79). Seibert does a great job in describing the appearances and personalities of the four performers on stage, bringing each of them to life through his words and vivid language. There is a sense of constant motion that is communicated through the writing. A portion of the review that I particularly liked used active voice to create powerful imagery: “Two people build some pattern in common until one of them breaks off. Two people almost touch but keep a tiny distance, or they do touch and the touching turns violent. Someone comes away smug, someone comes away hurt.” Seibert even goes so far as to include a description of the Chocolate Factory theatre in which ‘Flutter’ was performed, noting how its starkness was softened by the presence of a white panel and wide bands of white gauze.
Yet despite all this wonderful, strong imagery, there is a sense of disparity that is taken away from reading the review. I couldn’t quite put together all these descriptive elements in my mind to form one cohesive image. I had no clear sense of what the performance was intended to portray, nor did Seibert give much by way of interpretation in his review. At first, I thought this was a fault on his part because based on Feldman’s model, interpretation is a key component to any successful dance critique. But with more thought I realized that perhaps this was intentional. For one thing, judging from the way Seibert entitled his review, I could imagine that maybe the piece itself didn’t really have a story or message per se, but was more about creating a specific atmosphere through the titular charged interactions. Then I considered the possibility that Seibert did not wish his readers to watch this performance with any preconceived notions in mind.
Oliver warns against having too many thoughts about a piece while in the middle of watching it, as these thoughts may distract from fully engaging and absorbing the piece as it is happening. What Seibert has done is give us enough detail and imagery to have a rough sense of what we will encounter, but does not interpret the piece or try to ascribe any certain meaning to it aside from what he sees. He includes just enough evaluation at the end so that we can say his piece is a critique, but not to the point where it seems that he is discouraging his readers from seeing the performance. I really enjoyed reading Seibert’s review because even without following the guidelines of Feldman’s model, he still managed to produce a well-written and insightful piece of writing about dance. Although I agree with the majority of points that Oliver makes in her writing, I was pleased to find that Seibert’s review was still effective despite not following “the rules”.
–Norine Chan (Blog A)
