Author: aliyahrosemeyer

I completely agree with Eli’s critique of this performance. I shared his feelings of annoyance and discomfort with the performance, not because it was beyond my intellectual capacity but because it felt like a bad turn of deja vu. I too was looking forward to a dance performance. I was prepared for some type of post modern dance piece, being that this performance was prefaced as something “Ralph doesn’t usually do” I was anticipating some form of non-conventional dance, even something reminiscent of contact improvisation was a possibility in my mind. But as Eli said the grand majority of this performance was not dance.
Despite the fact that Janine Durning is a dancer, we all agreed that “Inging” was a performance art piece, not a dance. Much like “Inging,” “Scaffold Room” did cover a wide range of seemingly unrelated topics, from trips to outer space, to anal sex, to surviving Hurricane Sandy in Manhattan. But where I feel the pieces differ was the purpose of their non linear topics. Janine spoke in an unscripted, unpredictable, and completely vulnerable fashion. She did not know what was going to come out, only that it was exactly what she was at that moment and in that way she shared an incredibly intimate part of her soul. “Scaffold Room” was scripted and the changes in subject were frequent and cyclical. She repeated and transcended topics as she pleased but many of them felt disingenuous. I didn’t feel emotionally connected to either of the women and I think that where Janine endeared us with her stream of consciousness, Lemon’s actresses confused and disenfranchised us further than if they had carried a more logical train of thought. I also think that the women in “Scaffold Room” were primarily actors, who did a decent amount of singing, and had very little dance influence in their performances.
Again, I do not believe I am mentally incapable of understanding the content of “Scaffold Room,” but instead of feeling engaged and trying to decipher if their was meaning behind her frequent costume, topic, and demeanor changes, I felt bored and confused. The video of her crying against a brick wall that was played in the beginning of the show, and the men’s dance routine at the end held my attention far more than anything the women did in the middle. Unfortunately, those two elements that I was able to connect with were never referenced, or tied into the center of the performance, which left me even more confused.
I agree with Eli’s point that just because a choreographer creates a piece it is not necessarily a dance. I am neither experienced nor totally comfortable with dance as an art form, and I took this class in hopes of educating and enriching myself into the wide variety of dance styles and cultures there are here in New York City. Living in the melting pot of global culture and history I figured this class would be the perfect opportunity for me to get to experience styles and periods of dance I never had before. As my classmates in Blog A have said I feel like we have seen very many, very similar performance pieces, and very few dance performances. I appreciate performance art as a style that requires dance elements to be successful, but as we wind closer to the end of the semester I am disappointed to realize the likelihood of me getting to see a ballet, salsa, musical theatre, African, or improvisational dance piece in New York City is slim to none. Maybe if “Scaffold Room” was the first as opposed to the fourth performance art piece we have seen as a class, I might have been more engaged and appreciative of what it had to offer us. But as it stands I was mostly just confused, frustrated, and disappointed with the exception of the two excerpts I enjoyed at the beginning and end.

From what we have read, watched, and discussed I think post modern dance was a movement that provided a radical and unique new outlook onto what dance was. Modern dance had already shattered the glass ceiling of classical dance as it strayed from ballet into hundreds of new varieties with their own style, technique and cultural influence. Post modern dance varied again from modern dance by challenging common assumptions or requirements even of the new modern dance style. It introduced complex questions to be answered through physical expression. This physical expression varied greatly. Post modernism challenged the necessity for dances to be choreographed to music, or any noise at all. Why do we need music as a background for dance? And if we include music why does it have to be written prior to the choreographing as an inspiration for the dance? Why can’t dances be the inspiration for music, or for them to be created independently and combined without prior rehearsal? These are the types of questions that brought about the post modern dance movement. Dancers used strange props, danced in silence or vocalized while dancing, some even incorporated motions that were questioned to even be considered dance.

One artist who was a strong proponent in the development of this movement was Steve Paxton. Paxton got involved in the movement after studying with Bob Dunn in Merce Cunningham’s studio. Performances under Dunn took place in Judson Church, a venue that proved itself to be a place to foster the new work of post modern choreographers like himself. When Paxton was looking for a place to show his own work, he also turned to Judson Church. Paxton was the founder of a dance style called contact improvisation. Contact improvisation is a type of unchoreographed dance that involved some multiple of people greater than one. Dancers knew a series of techniques and motions but had to focus on working and moving with their partner(s) as the paramount theme of the dance style. Partner(s) characteristically have to remain in contact with one another as they move freely around, over, and under one another. They have to do as much “listening” with their bodies as they do “speaking” so that both partners knew where each other wants to go and are therefore able to remain in meaningful contact. Paxton’s introduction of contact improvisation into the post modern dance movement remains a substantial contribution as it is still avidly taught and studied today. Many dancers, even if not primarily trained in this style, study Paxton’s influences as a way to heighten their sensitivity to the way they shift weight between themselves and the earth, as well as how they move and flow with partners they work with in other styles. Because of this, Paxton has not only pioneered a new dance style, but also improved the technique of dancer performing other dance styles.

One thing I really liked about Eunice’s critique is how she chose to start it. She opened with a paragraph very focused on the sensory elements she experienced which also transported her readers into that experience as well. She focused on what she saw, heard, and felt mixing the actual happenings of the performance with what she was expecting and how she reacted as a result. She followed a logical chronology of the show as she commented on it which made it easy to understand regardless of whether or not you had actually been present at the performance. She did an excellent job of comparing what things changed and what remained constant throughout the performance commenting on things such as the number of dancers on stage, the tone of the piece at different times, and how the dancers seemed to interact with one another. I really liked how she chose to comment on the finality of the piece based on the final number selected and how/when in the song “Say Something” the final dancers left the stage. She clearly payed attention to the performance, and was thoughtful in how she recorded her reactions to the piece both in detail and as a whole.

When we first sat down in the theatre the dancers were already placed and although the stage was dark we could partially hear and see them stomping rhythmically. This didn’t strike me as out of the ordinary being that I have been in several performances where the stage is “pre-set” with actors/dancers as the audience enters the performance space.It did surprise me when I later marveled at the sheer duration of their performance and physicality because for them the show didn’t start at 7:40 when we finally found our seats and got quite. The performance started for them ten or twenty minutes before we even realized it had begun. These dancers have an incredible level of endurance maintaining nearly constant motion for upwards of two hours. The were jumping and swinging and exploding from lunged positions to standing within seconds. Also, much of the traveling across the stage was done during their rhythmic sequences of hand/foot/leg slapping and therefore was accomplished by long single-footed hops spanning several feet at a time. These dancers if nothing else are incredible athletes and their endurance and physicality deserve copious recognition.

There was an interesting contrast between conformity and independence in the piece as well. The dances were very rhythmic and repetitive creating a sense of unity and order among the dancers even if they were doing the motions in a cannon or facing different directions. But if one dancer introduced a variation to the set of steps they were looked at strangely, and it often took several counts of this new motion before anyone decided to follow the “trend-setter.” They spent the entire performance both acting and reacting to their fellow dancers in a way that was both unified and independent. They all wanted to do what the group did and have the group do what they did, but when these two actions conflicted they were forced to either stick to their convictions and continue dancing unlike their partners, or stop their introduced variation and either return to the sequence everyone else was doing or stop dancing all together.

Sitting in the front row gave us a really interesting perspective on the performance. The dancers allotted the majority of their eye contact to one another, constantly looking at their partners to make sure they remain in sync as well as pick up on any various or introduced choreography. But the time they did spend looking at the audience was almost entirely over our heads. We were sitting at stage level and because they were standing they looked over us into the rows higher and further back almost exclusively. This enhanced my feeling of looking in on the performance. We made very few connections with the performers and they had such strong connections with one another that it was a very unique experience to be able to watch their interactions and not necessarily feel like I was connected to or part of the performance. I loved how much they seemed to enjoy dancing, frequently smiling and laughing as they looked at one another. It seemed completely authentic and I felt myself smiling as well. I found a lot of joy in feeling like I knew they loved what they were doing and loved doing it together. Their level of sync and connection with one another could not be achieved without a certain level of trust and mutual friendship. The level of physical endurance this performance took required them to work together and feed of each other’s energy- a goal that could not have been accomplished if they didn’t really enjoy dancing together.

I read the New York Times article “New York City Ballet Gambles on Unknown Artists” after reading Oliver’s chapter on critiquing dance articles. Much of Oliver’s writing talks about how critics review dance performances, this piece focused primarily on the two newest choreographer’s commissioned by the New York City ballet.

Several of her points such as the necessity for evaluations built on objective analysis regardless of personal preference do still apply to this article. Both choreographers’ previous experience and bodies of work are described without judgement or prejudice. Though they grew up in different countries, their trajectories crossed paths as they both competed for a mentor/protege experience with Alexei Ratmansky. Myles Thatcher beat out Robert Binet for the program and has a larger body of choreography work experience supporting him already. Though they were both hired to create work for the same ballet this differentiation between the artists could invite the possibility that a critic could show preference to Mr. Thatcher. His impartial tone throughout was something Oliver emphasized in her writing.

Another thing Oliver wrote about was the necessity of context. This was a quintessential focus for the article, especially since it is being highlighted that these are not well known choreographers. They are not famous or world renowned so having contextual background focusing on their dance history, previous work, training, and style intent are important so that those who read the article can begin to learn about Thatcher and Binet. Each artist has his own set of paragraphs that reveal his start in dance, where and when he entered the professional world of dance, and some of their personal quotations. Hearing about their respective backgrounds allows readers to be more comfortable and subconsciously more trusting of both artists. Getting to hear their voice- not just a critique of their work gives the audience a good foundation of knowledge for future reference. Now if I were to go to their performances or read a critique of their pieces in the future I have significant context as to their influences and how they got to where they are now.

I really enjoyed the article I read and almost wish that we were going to the New York City ballet as a result of reading this review. Both ballet’s will premiere tomorrow at the City Ballet’s fall gala and I would be interested to see if New York Times will do a follow up review of the artists finished and performed products.

Aliyah Meyer

I have been to museums before and tried to appreciate the art but always felt like I wasn’t doing it correctly or the way the artist intend for their work to be seen/felt. The biggest thing I took away from the readings was the fact that so much of art appraisal and appreciation or lack there of today is focused on the famousness of the work and not the work itself. A piece of art is not beautiful because you think it is; it is beautiful because its been used on this postcard and that magazine and was bought for that much money. This emphasis of art’s success being defined by its publicity or cost really stuck out to me.

Some of my favorite pieces in the MOMA when we went last week were ones I didn’t know and I’d never seen before. I tried to remember what I had read and think to myself as I walked through the galleries to judge whether or not I liked a piece of art based on the way I felt about it, not how I thought others felt about it. This also worked in the converse for more well known works I saw in the MOMA that were not new to me. Famous Seurat or Picasso paintings that I know well and that are considered incredibly famous based on their high number of re-printings and monetary value are ones that I took a second look at. I appraised them for myself based on my mental and emotional connection to the works. Some I found to actually appreciate more than I had in the past because I now felt my opinions of the paintings were more valid than in my prior visits. I also found that I was not as interested in some of the works I’d seen in the past because I wasn’t going to love them just because that was the social standard.

The readings gave me a deeper appreciation for my favorite painting in the MOMA: Monet’s Agapanthus. It has been my favorite of the Monet Water Lilies paintings since I was a child and first came to the MOMA. I recognize now that I loved the colors and Monet’s depiction of nature and innocence before I was old enough to know that it was an incredibly famous set of paintings. I like that I felt connected to this painting based off of how I genuinely felt about it, not a societal pressure to like it. All in all the readings helped me to better appreciate some of the pieces in the museum and gave me more confidence in my ability to critically asses the paintings that I see.

This performance was very interesting, while I honestly did not understand all of it I was able to appreciate some of the symbolism between the dancers actions and The Overview effect. In the beginning the dancers moved erratically around the 360 degree performance space in a way that seemed random, almost as if it were improv, not choreographed in advance. I assumed this was supposed to symbolize their journey into space although my only real clue to this inference was the fact that towards the end of this section of the performance they came together and stared out at the audience in awe, as if they were seeing Earth from space for the first time. Later they seemed to acknowledge the change instilled in them by the Overview effect by chanting the names of every country in the world followed by “harmony,” “army,” and “unity.” I think Julian and Jocelyn really captured the emotional and mental change in a person before and after the Overview effect. As they “descended back to earth” the two established physical contact for the the first time in the entire 50 minute piece showing both their personal and interpersonal development as a result of the experience.

There were still plenty of things I did not understand about the performance. First of all why all the beach balls? Why did Julian make all the expressive though not coherent noises prior to and during his release of the beach balls? Why did they kick the majority of the balls to the edge of the stage but leave some in the center in a seemingly random and unplanned accord? Were the balls a microcosm for our solar system or a macrocosm for a persons mind/thought process/conscience? Despite my desire to have a better understanding for all parts of the piece, A View From Nowhere was a fantastic presentation that both challenged and entertained me. I was lucky enough to be a part of the select few who got to experience it.