Month: September 2015 (Page 2 of 8)

Brian Seibert’s review, “The Duet as a Physical Sculpture, Unburdened by Noise or Clothing,” focuses on Molly Lieber and Eleanor Smith’s dance performance Rude World. Throughout the review, Seibert highlights how the dancers, although seemingly “dancing only for each other” in a “self-contained world,” obviously made it for “the external gaze.” Although the dance between the partners seems private, their movements are often a showcase for the audience. This point is clear throughout all the paragraphs, which is a technique Wendy Oliver emphasizes, stating that “all writing on a specific dance” must be “connected to your thesis statement for that dance” (77).

Although Seibert does not supply the reader with enough description to actually envision the dance itself, he does supply snippets of description, which is effective in this case because, as Oliver points out, “generalized description of a…section of a dance is appropriate for capturing its flavor” (79). He is able to capture “the flavor” of the dance through use of specific words and phrases such as “sensual,” “tactile,” and “interplay of weight, muscular tension and release.” He also makes effective use of language through similes such as “they are like tangled strands of seaweed caught up in gently churning waves,” which according to Oliver, helps to “communicate the impact of the work in an engaging way” (90).

Furthermore, Seibert goes on to provide his own interpretation, exemplifying Oliver’s technique: “forming a plausible hypothesis about the meaning of a dance and then backing it up” (85). Although he does not provide interpretations as frequently as descriptions, he picks a specific part to interpret the dance as a whole. He states that the performance was “sensual, tactile, but the tone…much less erotic than exposed and undefended” and goes on to defend his view by describing the “prone Ms. Lieber [pulling] her knees under her and [arching] her back.”

Along with this interpretation, Siebert concludes the review with an evaluation. Overall, he describes the dance as “too haphazard and insufficiently thought through,” and that “the view is beautiful, but it isn’t quite enough.” However, unlike Oliver description of evaluation as building “on description, analysis, and interpretations to make arguments” regarding the successes and failures of a performance, Seibert fails to build up to his evaluation. His descriptions and interpretations fail to lead up to his final conclusion–he does not use them to indicate why he thought that the dance was not enough.

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

Gia Kourlas’ review of “Tape” by Kenneth Kvarnstrom was less praise and more dissatisfaction for the dance piece. Kourlas comments on the theme of the tape in the piece, as a grid and series squares on the ground or that the live (not taped!) music played for the dancers. There are moments in the review in which one could mistake the comments for positive remarks and a sense of enjoyment. However, any such remarks are quickly followed by an off handed putdown. The dance is described as looking like a fabric freshener commerical, the cast being talented but ultimately no more remarkable than any other dancer or even the floor, and facets of the performance are referred to as “worse intrusions”. Even the term whimsy is being used with a sense of mockery; the musician playing instruments through the dancers is whimsical, a dancer telling a cake recipie is whimsical, an non-sequiter about almonds being a nut, the title of the review itself- it’s all so whimsical!
Now, the review does not follow much of what Wendy Oliver describes in her writing. There is very little semblance of an actual description of the performance in the review. As the reader, I had little to no idea of what this dance must have been like to watch except for that it was not very impressive. In addition to that, there is hardly any analysis or interpretation of “Tape” in the review. All that this review consisted of was the author’s evaluation of the performance, a less than pleased evaluation that stood on the borderline of mocking and insulting, and a garden variety of general observations about the performance. This review was enough to make me not want to see “Tape”, not because of scathing remarks, but because I learned hardly anything about it and so it leaves me with a feeling of apathy… perhaps, however, that is what Kourlas intended?

Mary Yanez

The dance review, ” ‘Zero One’ Plays With Difference at Danspace” by Siobhan Burke focuses on how the dance piece revolves around the concept of two’s. Burke mentions how the performance essentially draws from the very different backgrounds of the two dancers. One being trained in Japanese Butoh, and the other in European contemporary dance, Burke states that “Ms. Yokoshi…seems interested in both reconciling and teasing out differences, finding the two-ness in their oneness, and vice versa.” I personally found it most interesting how the choreographer, Yasuko Yokoshi, chose the identical Fukuoka twins to be the two performers in the dance. Having two visually indistinguishable dancers makes the concept of two’s and the differences among the two dance styles all the more ironic.

Furthermore, I was able to make note of how Burke utilized some of the critiquing techniques mentioned in Wendy Oliver’s “Writing About Dance”. Oliver emphasizes how the goal of a dance critic should be to write as vividly as possible in order to try to “re-create some aspects of the performance for the reader”. It is evident that Burke attempts to evoke the performance in the reader’s mind when she says “one dancer, stiffened, collapses in the other’s arms, her bones knocking against the wooden floor”. Aside from the duality exhibited in this piece, Burke makes note of the haunting film excerpts displayed in the background of the dance. The excerpts are from Ms. Yokoshi’s film “Hangman Takuzo” and they exhibit an old “Japanese performance artist who hangs himself — safely — each day in his garden”. It is noticeable that the film being played in the background influenced Burke’s description of the performance when she says ” their movement, much like the dangling Hangman Tazuko and the ghostly Ms. Kawamura in the film, hovers delicately between being here and being gone”. Although Burke does a great job of describing the piece, I feel that her critique was incomplete. I learned from Oliver that criticism includes “description, analysis, interpretation, and evaluation, which are equally applicable to observing and writing about dance”. After reading the review I felt that her critique lacked thorough analysis and interpretation. I felt like I didn’t get a sense of what she exactly thought of the dance piece or what she might’ve thought it represented or meant.

Ariella Caminero

Both Matisse’s Woman with a Hat and Mark Rothko’s No. 61 eschew realistic imagery and coloring to use colors to express emotions more purely. Matisse rejected realistic coloring, but Rothko rejected concrete objects altogether to express emotions through blocks of pure color. When looking at No. 61, there is little that the viewer can do except ponder the meaning of the colors alone, stripped of all context. In this way, Rothko stands among the Abstract Expressionists who used pure, simple forms to communicate ideas. Woman with a Hat, on the other hand, uses its bold colors to enhance the expressiveness of its subject. Here, the colors, while being very eye-catching, serve to complement the woman rather than overshadow her. This stands in stark contrast to No. 61, where the colors are the primary- indeed, the only – thing for the viewer.

Throughout his lifetime, Pablo Picasso created a multitude of art forms which spanned over his several modern art movements. Picasso’s various artistic movements were jarring in their aesthetic differences; however, it is clear to the trained eye that Picasso was able to maintain certain and specific underlying elements throughout his changing movements. These underlying elements included brush stroke patterns, shading, as well as emotional projections. Picasso’s Woman Plaiting Her Hair and Girl with a Mandolin are prime examples of Picasso work that from first glance, have stark differences, but share both underlying artistic technique as well as emotional depth. Despite being painted only four years apart from one another, Woman Plaiting Her Hair and Girl with a Mandolin show few similarities in composition, color and style. The works are so distinguished that to an untrained eye, these pieces might look like works from two different artists entirely. Woman Plaiting Her Hair uses soft curves and warm skin tones to draw the viewer closer to the subject. Girl with a Mandolin on the other hand, forces the viewer to step back from the canvas and analyze the geometric intricacies and watch as the various shapes and lines connect to form the body and face of a girl. But when juxtaposed, both pieces project feelings of youth and beauty onto the viewer. While these paintings may not look alike on first glance, similarities help connect these two pieces in the timeline of Picasso’s art career. His ability to paint similar subjects in completely different styles across his art movements helps reveal his range and ease in artistic translation over time.

-Eli McClain

One work is arguably the most famous pieces in the art world, which people flock from all over the globe to see; the other is a postcard replica of the first work, only doodled on in pencil. These are the Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci and LH.O.O.Q. by Marcel Duchamp, respectively. These two works could be said to lie on opposite ends of the artistic spectrum, considering how one is appreciated as a classic while the other one may as well be akin to… drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa. The two pictures are so similar, though, save for one small detail; what kind of significance could that slight difference really have? It is simple: the creation of the latter work challenges our perception of what art truly is and how we view it, which we can see when juxtaposed with the more traditional Mona Lisa for contrast. 

Mary Yanez

With the onset of personal health issues at the epoch of the 20^th century, it is believed to be that Claude Monet produced works of art that were to coincide with his developing cataracts. This influence is depicted in the differences between his works “Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies” and “The Japanese Footbridge”. Although both paintings are centralized around the same subject, it is evident that there is a transformation in his style. Monet’s style evolves from concentrated and detailed to a more indeterminate and fluid technique. However, Monet was known for focusing on “capturing the moment” such as changes in light and the passing of seasons. Thus it is possible that this change in style between the paintings could not only be attributed to his health, but also the fact that he wished to encapsulate the atmosphere of the very moment he was a part of.

Ariella Caminero

Everyone views art differently; sometimes, a piece seems easier to understand, while other times, a piece of art may just confuse the viewer. Artists often use different colors and techniques in order to more clearly express their perception of the world. Whereas Miro uses differing paint patterns, colors, and geometric shapes in The Birth of the World to highlight an abstract, chaotic, raw view of the world, Seurat’s Evening, Honfleur utilizes a precise painting technique, known as pointillism, and particular colors in order to show how duality enhances the world around us.

Jessica Sun

“Agapanthus” by Claude Monet and the painting “Abstract Portrait of Marcel Duchamp” create a rift in the ways of viewing art, with “Agapanthus” being a painting which can be appreciated in its beauty due to its visual appeal as a painting as opposed “Abstract Portrait of Marcel Duchamp” which requires a more interactive mind and understanding of time period. This need to understand context in the painting may alienate a viewer from its true beauty.The painting “Agapanthus” by Claude Monet has a rudimentary yet naturally explicit appearance due to its impressionistic painting style. This piece is created with a majority of cool hues, predominantly blue. This is contrasted greatly by the crisp technically linear yet abstract appearance in “Abstract Portrait of Marcel Duchamp” by Katherine Sophie Drier. This painting has a mix of all different hues, varying from cool to warm and of various intensities.

Glenn Collaku