Dance is an intimate glimpse into the psyche of choreographers and dancers; dance rehearsals are even more revealing. John Jasperse’s rehearsal revealed the backbone of his dance performances by illustrating the thought processes that materialize into dance, and the meticulous and time-consuming work that goes into the creation and perfection of dance pieces.

John Jasperse’s rehearsal consisted of a working session between him and two dancers. Jasperse at one point following the rehearsal referred to himself as being “didactic”. This was apparent in his meticulous corrections of the dancers, from the angle of their limbs to the pace of one dancer in relation to the other. This conveyed the importance of accuracy in dance. It suggests that dance is an art form. There is specificity, and each facet of it is very much intentional. Thus, this focus on the aesthetics of dance conveys to the audience the power of the visual significance of dance. Each element of the dance is meant to be appreciated. While the viewer is prone to have his or her own personal view of the piece, it is not to say that the dance itself is not presented without a message.

Jasperse was open to having an open dialogue with the dancers about the philosophy behind the dance. One of the dancers questioned a certain dance movement, conveying his disconnect to the idea of the piece. He felt that it did not align with the message they were trying to send. While we as the audience were not aware of what exactly the message was, we at least became aware that it was an integral part of the dance. What resulted was a slight change in the movement, and a much more confidant dancer. This revealed two things. Firstly, because dancers are the presenters of dance performances, they must be emotionally behind the piece. Secondly, that dance is a continually evolving work that parallels the changing mind of its creators and executioners. This further relates dance to art in that it is a projection of an individuals (or individuals’) thoughts and ideas into an accessible form.

From Jasperse’s rehearsal, we were able to see how this art form can be created and refined. The technicalities proved to be essential in the execution of the piece, while the message behind the piece served as the foundation for both the decisions in choreography and possible adjustments to make.

-Prima (Blog B)

The post-modern movement as a whole is a rather confusing one. Like many other large, encompassing art movements (the Post-Impressionist movement comes to mind), there are different sects and groups and new techniques and ideas become popular throughout the years. However, there are some characteristics that hold them together. The term post-modern dance was created by Michael Kirby, who defined it as a dance where “movement is not preselected for its characteristics but results from certain decisions, goals, plans, schemes…” (Banes xiv). Essentially, post-modern dance is functional; rather than using mood, music and characterization, it uses things like costume, lighting and in functional ways. (2). The idea was for the dancers to showcase the crux of what dance was- expression and emotions. They wanted the audience to really see the very movements and create a story behind them. There were many performances where the dance was simply eating onstage, or performing daily actions during a precise time-constraint. This brought about the new idea that dance is not dance because of the story told, but because it was shown and called a dance. In addition, post-modern dance was spontaneous. It had a freedom that modern dance and ballet didn’t; the dancers “…relinquish technical polish, literally to let go of bodily constraints and inhibitions, to act freely…” (xxvii).

Steve Paxton, a member of the Judson Dance Theater was a choreographer of the post-modern movement. Paxton was fascinated with the idea of the human body and its functionality and explored it in many different pieces. He was part of a growing number of people who believed the human body was the very center of the art that is dance, rather than being the carrier, or facilitator. Steve Paxton’s contact improvisation was a very radical idea, but function into the very conceptions we place on post-modern dance. Paxton had his students be trained in the human body; they learnt was movement and how to move separately and with others. They learnt how to hold their weight and shift it throughout their body and to stop thinking and for a lack of a better term, “go with the flow”. Steve Paxton’s CI is the epitome of spontaneity – the dancers have no idea what they’re going to be doing even seconds before it happens. The result of what he has is something very smooth, sensual and organic. It does not rely on the costumes or the backdrop or the music to make a complete piece the audience can enjoy- his work stands on its own.

Malavika Attur (Blog B)

In a post-modern dance issue of The Drama Review, Michael Kirby attempts to define [analytic] post-modern dance.  Sally Banes paraphrases his definition as “rejects musicality, meaning, characterization, mood and atmosphere; it uses costume, lighting, and objects in purely functional ways.”  This stage of post-modern dance in the 1970s was minimalistic, functional, and objective.  They replaced costumes with sweatpants and t-shirt/casual everyday dress, music with silence, and special lighting effects with plain, well-lit rooms.  Not only did they reject music and rhythm, they got rid of dramatic phrasing, contrast, and resolution.  They wanted the audience to see the structure and movements themselves.   An important focus was the scientific analysis of how the body works, which fits the name of this movement. Performers made pure, simple movements using repetition and reversal, mathematical systems, geometric forms, and comparison and contrast.  They distanced themselves by using scores, verbal commentaries, and ordinary, every-day actions such as about working or completing tasks.  They danced in a relaxed, but ready manner.  Also, the spectator would be part of the choreography actively participating or indirectly using objects.

Steve Paxton’s contact improvisation (CI) is characteristic of the analytic post-modern dance movement.  As we saw in his video on Friday and KJ Holmes’ contact class, two or more people are moving relative to each other while always maintaining physical contact.  We are able to take the dance for its face value without any special costumes, music, or scenery.  Even though I knew that this dance technique was improvisational, it felt really natural and at ease, somewhat like watching kids tumble around with each other, although their actions are smoother.  Neither performer knows what to expect next, but they are able to react quickly, for example, supporting the other person on his/her back.  In the exploration of the body sense, this can be used to discover new moves.  These then can be incorporated in choreography/scores of other dances or surprisingly, even CI to give it more structure.  This may seem to take away from the improvisational aspect, but it does make the dance more objective, one of their goals.

~Erica Kwong (Blog B)

Analytic Post-Modern Dance is an art form that centers dance on the individual. This liberates dance from the constraining standards that dictated earlier dance forms both physically and philosophically. This was done by making dance more about functionality. The individual became the main subject of the piece, and became an expression of dance, rather than the dance performed by the individual to be an expression of some idea. The movement placed an emphasis on the elements of dance itself by exposing raw aspects of it, and glorified the human body by making it a form of expression rather than an instrument of expression. For instance, “actual time” was used: movements were timed to the amount needed to physically carry out the activity as opposed to the standardized timing that dictated earlier forms of dance. Banes describes this new style of choreography to be illustrating “a theory of dance”. The Judson Church performances by the dance group Steve Paxton, Yvonne Rainer, Robert Rauschenberg formed consisted of artists, composers, and writers, not trained dancers. This was a clear indication of the divergence their dance would take from the more traditional forms of dance. For example, there was an emphasis on spontaneity and the process of dance rather than the finished product. Monotone techniques and repetition were emphasized over craftsmanship. By the 1970s, Analytic Post-Modern dance had established a more concrete style. It was minimalistic, scientific, and humble. It was also influenced by non-Western philosophies.

As briefly alluded to earlier, Steve Paxton was an integral part in the formation and growth of post-modern dance. Paxton started off in a workshop taught by Robert Dunn in Merce Cunningham’s studio. The “freedom from evaluation” was something the students (trained dancers) had not been exposed to and was a relatively new concept at the time as well. As their techniques developed, Steve Paxton co-founded a group that performed at the Judson Church, a significant platform for post-modern dance. The group was later invited by the Washington Art Gallery of Modern Art to give a concert. Paxton went on to create the Surplus Dance Theater series at Stage 73, and the First New York Rally. The post-modern dance movement also reflected the political turmoil brought on by the war at the time. Steve Paxton responded to this atmosphere through Intravenous Lecture, Beautiful Lecture, and Collaboration with Wintersoldier, which tackled issues of censorship, the war and political corruption.

Analytic post-modern dance is dance that can be done without music or props, aiming to show off the dance and movements without distractions.  This type of dance “rejected musicality, meaning, characterization, mood, and atmosphere” (Banes xiv).  It replaced those losses with costume, lighting, and objects that could be used in purely functional ways.  Banes announces in her book Terpsichore in Sneakers: Post-Modern Dance that analytic post-modern dance was created for the pleasure of the dancer, not for the audience.  In fact, she makes it out to seem like the audience’s opinion doesn’t even matter.

Steve Paxton, a post-modern dancer and choreographer, utilized analytic post-modern dance concepts in his contact improvisational style of dance, as we saw in the video today.  His dance technique entails multiple dancers making physical contact with one another in totally, “improvised” manners.  He commented early on in the video that he wanted his audience to focus on the spontaneity of his dancers’ movements rather than be distracted by music and intentions in the dance.  Banes writes about the same thing.

Banes wrote, “non-dancers suddenly became dancers because of the informality and flexibility” of the new wave (Banes 13).  Paxton agreed with this, and allowed for his dancers to be their own choreographers.  This was the only way to ensure sure spontaneity, as every dancer had a different motion in their head.

Paxton later remarked that playing around with gravity was a key element to this type of dance.  He tried to show the importance of gravity on movements: how it would create a flowing dance (a dance without stops) and a dance that would never allow for the loss of contact.  This also relied heavily on precise timing, as I will mention below.

Paxton tried to show his audience a new form of dance.  One of his improvisational dances was called Flat, in which the dancers got dressed and undressed in real time (Banes xvii).  Banes writes on page 17– in regards to timing – that an action, “is executed without regard to grace… or technical skill.  The action takes exactly the length of time it might take outside the theater.”  This use of timing is key to both analytic post-modern dance and to Paxton’s ideas of what his dance should look and feel like.

Kyle (Blog B)

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-09-21/dance/no-eacute-mie-lafrance-would-like-to-push-you-around/

 Apollinaire Scherr’s dance critique, entitled “Noémie Lafrance Would Like To Push You Around” was a very candid and straightforward representation of his disappointment after seeing Noemie Lafrance’s new project, “The White Box”. Seemingly a very experienced critic, he didn’t adhere to the rules of the Feldman Model of Criticism, however he was very effective at painting a picture of the performance in my mind and conveying the reasoning behind his disappointment.

He began with a brief background on the artist by describing the works that Lafrance had done in the past that evoked a completely different and more positive response from critic and audiences. For him this was an advantageous approach because the contrast between Lafrance’s debut performances which were exciting and suspenseful and the new piece that he conveys as being boring and diluted makes the readers more susceptible to agree with his opinion.

Before he begins the description of the piece, he states the advertised interpretation, which he agrees with. Then he begins a combination of a description, analysis, interpretation, and evaluation throughout the main body paragraphs of the critique. As he recounts his experience, he uses descriptive language that elicits a negative connotation on the things he saw. By mixing his emotions and ideas with the description, as the reader I felt somewhat skeptical because I wasn’t given an unbiased portrayal of the performance and then presented with his opinion but instead forced to accept his perspective as irrefutable.

In closing he adds that while reflecting on the performance he felt that he was left empty and the feeling he expected surpassed the one that he was left with at the end. Even though he didn’t stick to our student format, being a professional I assume he has developed his own personal style of reviewing dance that has proved itself very effective. I think most people would be at a little hesitant before seeing this performance. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/arts/dance/john-j-zullo-dance-raw-movement-delves-into-the-past.html?ref=dance

Wendy Oliver says that a review is based on four components, description, analysis, Interpretation, and evaluation, with description being the support for the other three. In Gia Kourlas’s review of John J Zullo’s production, “All what THIS do HAS you Happened see? Before,” Kourlas vividly describes important moments to us and then continues to analyze, interpret and evaluate, quite ruthlessly, Zullo’s production.

Kourlas describes the beginning of the performance and the set of the stage and gives us his feeling on that set up. He is very clearly annoyed and dislikes the performance from the beginning. He tries to find meaning in the work but considers it random at many points and in his analysis he can not find much meaning. Wendy Oliver says that sometimes we just don’t “get it” and that this might just be the fault of the director, as is the case here – and this case is supported by Kourlas.

Kourlas continues to describe the performance, interprets the movements correctly, but it is difficult not to interpret the movements correctly because, according to Kourlas, the performance was treacle. He notices that the dancers are soulfully peering through sheets of glass as if searching the dark recesses of their brain – but the movements were fragmented and too similar. This performance seemed to be full of pretension and surface, to put words into Kourlas’ mouth. He describes the next phase of the dance as having a too literal meaning with no real meaning to be uncovered – a bum-esque character acting as both victim and victimizer.

Kourlas finishes his review by summing up the point he has been making all along: Mr.Zullo manages to work sentimentality into every step he makes and that tendency makes the whole thing forgettable. Kourlas’ review was clearly a negative one but it was backed up and supported through description and his attempts to analyze and interpret. Unfortunately there was nothing to analyze as the point of the performance was written on its sleeve and there was nothing personal to interpret because of the lack of “emotional luminosity”, as Kourlas puts it.

According to Oliver’s rubric: Kourlas’ introduction was a 4, his identification of information was a 3, thesis statement was a 4, description was a 4, analysis and interpretation and evaluation was a 4, flow was a 4, and his conclusion was a 4. While it seemed to be at first that Kourlas didn’t vividly describe the movements of the actors in great detail, he did describe what they were supposed to be doing, such as soulfully peering through glass, and gathering beneath a spotlight with their irritatingly obscured bodies. I think he described the movements when they seemed to be meaningful, and that is what counts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/arts/dance/john-j-zullo-dance-raw-movement-delves-into-the-past.html?ref=dance

“Total Recall: Reconstructing Memory, for Better or Worse”, a review by Gia Kourlas, gives a denouncing analysis of Raw Movements’ attempt at exploring the novel and familiarity of memory. Most, if not all, of the article was riddled with disappointment and boredom as she listed the different ways the performance did not do it for her. With no mercy, she strikes down the performance as having “little lasting effect”.

Although not the review I expected, I really liked the review, mostly for its brutal honesty. She tears down every part of the performance into its bare essences, and continues to destroy that as well. There is almost a personal feeling of regret in there. This allows us to see his opinion while letting us understand a part of the performance, as if we could see it ourselves.

Kourlas’ review strayed quite a bit from the Feldman model. As opposed to describing the work, then analyzing it, then interpreting it, and finally evaluating it, she mixes the order of these within a chronological retelling of the performance. She gives her interpretation first, giving us the idea of a profound and successful performance, but begins to tear down the veil by giving her opinion among the description and analysis. I liked this loose structure more because it seemed more natural. It made the review really easy to understand and follow.

Overall, although this review didn’t exactly follow the Feldman structure, it was still successful at conveying all the information that the Feldman structure did in a very pleasant way. After reading about dance critiquing, I now understand how to analyze a dance performance, but I also see how you don’t need to adhere to that too religiously.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/arts/dance/liz-gerring-dance-offers-mirrorlike-illusions-in-glacier.html?pagewanted=all

Just like how the Berger and Barnet readings helped us to “see art”, the Wendy Oliver readings taught us how to write good dance critiques.  Chapter 4 first introduces a critique as a “thoughtful discussion and analysis”.  On a deeper level, it focuses on the Feldman Model of Criticism, which consists of four components:  description, analysis, interpretation and evaluation.  The description is about the different components of the work and the analysis shows how these parts fit in with each other.  In the interpretation, the critic explains the meaning and in the evaluation, s/he gives his/her own opinion of the work.

Oliver goes on to mention construction and language.  Although these can apply to almost any writing in general, she gives many examples of these techniques pertaining to dance critiques.  She also provides a suggested format, a rubric, a checklist, and even a sample piece at the end, which is helpful.  We are able to see these characteristics in “Icy White Synapses in a Crackling Heat: Liz Gerring Dance Offers Mirrorlike Illusions in ‘Glacier’” by Alastair Macaulay.

Already, from the beginning, Oliver organizes her dance review well.  She starts off with her thesis statement: ““Glacier,” an enthralling and important new dance work lasting 60 minutes, by the choreographer Liz Gerring, abounds in arresting contradictions.”  Some other topic sentences of note are “Entrances and exits are lively ingredients of Ms. Gerring’s style.” and “Another beauty of the Gerring style is the keen focus she gives to her dancers.”, which often start of the body paragraphs.  Regardless, they are all followed by supporting details.

For example, in the first paragraph, Oliver describes the way the dancers move.  She analyzes the many contradictions: formal vs. informal, natural vs. practiced, wit vs. quirkiness, and passion vs. emotionalism.  She inserts her own interpretation in the second paragraph when she writes about dancing in both the main stage area and visible wing space.  To her, this represents “breaking down boundaries and worlds.”  There is also a statement of evaluation in the 4^th paragraph where she writes “I have admired Benjamin Asriel in works by several contemporary choreographers”.  However, for the most part, evaluation is implied by the many positive adjectives she uses such as “enthralling”, “fascination”, “absorbing”, and “moving”.

Lastly, there is powerful language interspersed throughout the dance critique.  This can already be seen in the first paragraph where she uses descriptive verbs such as “hurl”, “skim”, and “push”.  Oliver also inserts a few similes such as “its moods change like the weather” and “The main area is backed by a single white board, like a blank cinema screen”, which help us imagine the tone and setting of the piece.  Using the techniques mentioned above, Alastair Macaulay writes a strong review making me want to see the performance.

~Erica Kwong (Blog B)