Month: September 2015 (Page 1 of 8)

In ‘Tape,’ Performers Move Fluidly and Whimsically About a Grid begins by discussing the performance’s titular motif, comparing the use of tape on the ground to crafters who put tape on a Ziploc bag and call it “a dazzling neon zebra pouch”. This unfavorable comparison gives way to complaints about distractions like the tape grid and the costume designs, punctuated with the seemingly-sarcastic interjection “Ah, whimsy!”. As Oliver states, the backbone of dance criticism is description of the performance, and Kourlas brings in details to give an overview of “Tape” and support her thesis that the performance is a non-cohesive mess. Though short, the review gets its point across adequately.

I am analyzing the review by Siobhan Burke about the “Zero One” performance. Reading through the review, it is clear to see that the writer has had some experience in analyzing dance performances. To a certain extent a lot of the techniques that were in the reading steps were present in the review by Siobhan Burke. The technique that is evident from first sight is the eloquent language that helps burn an image into the mind of the review reader. From the description alone, one could get an overall picture of what the show itself is supposed to look like, even without having seen it.

Due to its brevity, the review also fails to go into too much analysis about the dance itself, but a decent amount of context about the man who would “safely hang himself” is provided. The review is relatively short, but it gets the point across to the reader who may be considering watching the performance without putting them to sleep with a winding response.

Glenn Collaku

In modern art, artists frequently move away from concrete and narrative images in favor of the abstract. Mark Rothko’s piece, No. 10, and Paul Klee’s Fire in the Evening are both famous, abstract paintings. However, they differ significantly in many aspects which, as a result, illustrate the different sociocultural environments in which they were created. Rothko’s piece is purely abstract, nonobjective art, whose use of many layers of blended oil on canvas evokes emotion from the viewer through its natural brush strokes and vibrant, overlaying colors, which mask subtle underlying colors. Klee’s piece, while abstract, is not purely abstract like Rothko’s because it vaguely represents the image of a fire, as implied by the title. Furthermore, the piece, painted with oil on cardboard rather than canvas, uses much more defined brush strokes of colors, which are mostly darker than those in Rothko’s, to create a very structured and geometric pattern. While Rothko’s piece represents American society’s concern with the individual and personal emotion, a common theme among abstract expressionist painters, Klee, a German expressionist, portrays the rigid and dark world of WWII-era Germany.

-Jaimee :^)

(Sorry this is late)

The Following is my review of the dance review by Gia Kourlas “Review: In ‘Tape,’ Performers Move Fluidly and Whimsically About a Grid” published in the New York Times. I will review the article based on the reading by Wendy Oliver.

According to Wendy Oliver, all dance reviews should consist of four main things: Description, Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation. All four elements provide a different level of insight or explanation of the performance viewed and gives the reader the full picture of the performance in their mind as well as the authors overall opinion of the piece. In Gia Kourlas review of “Tape” in the New York Times, only a few of these necessary elements were completely portrayed.

Within the first paragraph, the reviewer is supposed to address all general information about the performance before going into the minute details later on. Kourlas states the title of the performance as well as the choreographer, however does not mention when and where the event is taking place until paragraph three. Kourlas also fails to incorporate. She seems to include a thesis statement in the last sentence of her first paragraph stating, “… Mr. Kvarnstrom’s idea of tape extends beyond the sticky stuff in this production.” But never really mentions the physical tape that is in the production after that. So is this really a thesis at all if she doesn’t back it up? For some paragraphs she does follow the “suggested format for critique” highlighted in Oliver’s writing where she will have a sentence thesis at the beginning of the paragraph and go more in depth later on in the paragraph. But she was lacking the interpretation of the thesis as a whole, and a whole thesis in general that should have been present within her first paragraph.

Along with thesis statements, other small aspects were not present within Kourlas review. While she did describe the movements of the dancers in a paragraph or two using the suggested “strong action verbs” ad “interesting adjectives” necessary, she never once mentioned what type or genre of dance the performance was. Me, having a background in dance, was able to pick up that it was some type of modern dance but the author of a critique must write to those who may not know anything about dance at all. This is also touched upon within Oliver’s reading as well. This shows that Kourlas was lacking in the analysis portion of her review.

Overall,Kourlas does evaluate the performance that she viewed, and does give her general opinion on what she saw. However, according to Wendy Oliver’s outline of how a dance critique should be written, Kourlas is clearly missing some aspects mentioned by Oliver.

-Monica Huzinec

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/arts/dance/review-in-tape-performers-move-fluidly-and-whimsically-about-a-grid.html?ref=dance

In our short discussions on the performances we’ve seen thus far, we have talked a lot about interpreting and understanding a dance/performance, often without looking at other aspects of it. We seek to find meaning but without first understanding how to get to that point, skipping over the details of a piece. On the contrary, Alastair Macaulay focuses his review of New York City Ballet’s Swan Lake on the dancers themselves and the way they bring their character to life–or don’t–and how that is facilitated by the music, costuming, choreography, etc. Though Oliver stresses that “description should make up the main substance” (89), Macaulay sees no need to focus on describing the dance itself since Swan Lake is such a widely known ballet/story; thus, he makes his review different and interesting by discussing the other important, but often forgotten, pieces of the performance.

Macaulay does take time to describe and analyze several of the dancers’ performance, mainly that of Sara Mearns. His focus is on her unique ability to take the well-known dance to new heights through her emotional performance, which brings a deeper level of complexity than is usually portrayed by the Odette/Odile roles. In his review, Macaulay uses a healthy mix of “strong and varied action verbs,” “interesting adjectives,” and other forms of various other word choices. He describes how Mearns interprets the role with “completely authoritative individuality,” with “voluptuous passion” as Odette and “enigmatic, even…[brilliant]” as Odile. She dances as though “riding the full power of a wave.” He continues his focus on her dancing and what she brings to the character by pointing out how though she “stumbled” towards the end of Odile’s fouettes, she remained driven by the emotion and drama of Swan Lake.
Macaulay similarly describes the performances of the other dancers: Tyler Angle is “elegant,…gallant, relatively lightweight and without…specificity;” Brittany Pollack, Tiler Peck, and Joaquin de Luz “found a constant supply of wit and color” and looked “distinguished;” and the corps de ballet “danced with power and passion.”

Macaulay’s main point, however, is in the contrast between the dancing and the orchestration/costumes/colors of the ballet. His review highlights his ability to truly analyze a dance; as Oliver notes, “a critic must be able to make comparisons, determine structures, or place things in context,” (81) all of which Macaulay does. He talks about how the conductor, Daniel Capps, would sometimes slow down the tempo to accommodate the dancer, turning the great orchestration “clumsy.” He then goes on to criticize how the performance, meant to honor the late Albert Evans, only seemed to cast black males in the role of Rotbart. He uses this criticism to transition into his criticism of Peter Martins’ production and of the designs of the dance itself. He calls the costumes “silly,” the color schemes terrible in both concept and execution, and even goes so far as to call a costume “grotesque.” He does then take note of some of what NYCB does well, especially including multiple principals in slightly smaller roles and including many debuts.

Using these facts and observations, Macaulay analyzes the performance as a whole, informing the reader and potential viewers with more than just a review and glimpse at the characters and dancers in the ballet but also at the behind-the-scenes happenings. Unfortunately, Macaulay was unimpressed by Martins’ production and choices, and though he enjoyed the dancers’ performances, he found that NYCB’s Swan Lake is “less than the sum of its parts.”

Jessica Sun

New York City Ballet is back at it again with their 2015 production of Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. Alastair Macaulay, of New York Times, has chosen to stray from the dry critique of this frequently performed piece. He focuses on comparing and contrasting this production with those of other companies as well as commenting on the changes made in casting throughout his review. The focus of the review has been spread among a selection of aspects from the performance including, different dancers, costumes, music and solos. This correlates somewhat with Oliver’s writing in which she states, “Should the show consist of one full-length work, find three or four specific dance sections to critique” (76). Macaulay differs slightly as he focuses on different aspects of the performance and dancers while touching on certain choreography rather than focusing on the plot and rewriting what many others before him have said on the choreography and style of Swan Lake. Macaulay uses a variety of intense and descriptive adjectives and verbs to help guide the reader through pieces of the performance as if they were sitting next to him in the cool dark theatre. He speaks about NYCB’s choices in casting and adds his ideas about what he believed worked and what he did not enjoy watching. Macaulay employs some first person narrative to provide anecdotal evidence to his majorly third person narrative. His use of the first person voice is sparse and deliberate, confirming Oliver’s belief that authors should not “mix [the tenses] without cause” (91). This review on Swan Lake contained many extreme statements which at first surprised me. Macaulay described one solo as “grotesque” as well as the costumes’ color schemes as ” terrible in conception and execution”. After further investigation that these types of phrases were custom for the author and had previously been under fire five years ago because of a comment that he made about a female dancer’s weight.

I enjoyed Alastair Macaulay’s Review of NYCB’s Swan Lake. While he was critical of many aspects of the production, he did highlight certain dancers and gave credit where credit was due. Because of his vast knowledge of dance and his history as a dance critic, his reviews focus on much more than the dance itself. Because of this, the review may seem distant to readers who do not understand the plotline of Swan Lake. The review encapsulated many of Wendy Oliver’s ideas on writing for dance to create a sense of authority and provide the reader with information on the production and the ideas of the author.

-Eli McClain

In the New York Times review “In a New Work, Camille A. Brown Plays with Empowerment”, Gia Kourlas writes on the choreographer Camille A. Brown’s latest dance “Black Girl: Linguistic Play”. Kourlas begins with a thesis stating that Brown’s dance is not “the least bit diminutive.” She goes on to give an overview of the theme of the work which is the black female identity, and the medium through which it was expressed, the playground. Following this brief introduction, Kourlas briefly mentions the highlights of each section of the performance as well as the shifts of tone throughout.

In Wendy Oliver’s book Writing About Dance, she states that the model for dance criticism starts with description then goes to analysis, then interpretation, and finally evaluation. Additionally, the thesis sentence may be something that “offers an interesting insight and refers to the concert as a whole.” Kourlas beings her critique with a thesis that fulfills this in part by offering a general insight of the dance as not diminutive. Then, following Oliver’s format, the review has a brief description of the dance as a whole. However, considering the following critiques of each individual part, it seems like there should have been a longer description of the overall performance. All that is mentioned is the use of “a multilevel stage of platforms and mirrors” as well as the use of “games of childhood.” For a description, an overview of the performance would have been good.

The following paragraphs introduced different sections of the performance, along with brief analysis of each. However, there was not much of interpretation by Kourlas beside that of the tone shifts. In addition, the evaluation is practically non-existent in this review aside from that which is stated in the thesis. Kourlas does not explicitly follow through on her initial statement, although she does somewhat back it up through her descriptions of the parts of the performance. Throughout the review, third person voice is used which creates the atmosphere of a more professional critique and also slightly removes the critic from the action. Overall, Kourlas’ review on Brown’s dance is an effective and concise one.

The review I read was on Bruno Isakovic’s Disclosure, written by Siobhan Burke. The review concerns a piece in which the intimacy of the human individual is represented and celebrated, both through literal exposure (the nude) and figurative exposure (the disclosure of secrets).

In this review, Wendy Oliver’s breakdown of the criticism process is quite evident. The review opens with a description of the performance, which is the foundation for the analysis, interpretation, and evaluation which follow afterwards. The description gives a generalized idea of what the performance showed, as recommended by Oliver’s text. Burke’s subsequent analysis focuses on the combination of word, music and movement to create the piece as a whole and how it compares to the more movement driven performance, Denuded, which is a previous work by Isakovic. Putting these pieces together, Burke creates an interpretation in which the performers interact to share their most hidden secrets, both of their body and their mind, which creates a sense of intimacy that is hard to find and establish in our culture. Finally, Burke’s evaluation consists of his criticism of the piece’s shallow and incomplete confessional (a weakness), but not without praising the honesty of the work (a strength).

-Jaimee :^)

The following is my review of Gia Kourlas’ review of ‘Tape’, as based on the concepts in the Oliver reading. 

In their review of “Tape”, Gia Kourlas makes their opinion on the performance very clear, and supports it with details of the performance. In this sense, their thesis is very obviously presented. However, their definition is lacking, and does not describe the performance well to give the reader a sense of the action, nor do they give the context or background in the which this performance is meant to be in. At the very least, they have the basic information: location, time, choreographer, etc. Kourlas uses metaphors and similes well, and sticks with a single tense and voice that that is able to display their visible affront to the reader. But while they make their evaluation of “Tape” come across very clearly, the reader is unable to grasp the meaning or an image of the performance in Kourlas’ review. Moreover, Kourlas does not provide an interpretation of “Tape”, being too busy disparaging it. By Oliver’s standards, this review is somewhat incomplete. Ultimately Kourlas is able to communicate their thesis and evaluation, but is unable to clearly convey the action or meaning behind the performance.

-Jessica Ng