on elitism
daniel burkholder has an interesting post on his blog right now about being an elitist. if i understand correctly, he’s arguing that anyone w/ specialized knowledge is, by nature, elitist:
As soon as we begin to acquire specialized knowledge and communicate with others with similar knowledge we begin to leave people out of the conversation. Individually or privately this may not be much of a problem, but when we present a performance and some members of the audience don’t “get it”, aren’t we leaving them out? Could we have made it easier for them “to get”? But, if I go to a model train convention, or a neurology conference, I’m pretty much out of luck in both of these cases.
Is it my responsibility to acquire knowledge if I’m interested? Both? How many entry points are necessary before a community has done its share to be welcoming? Is it everyone’s job to be an entry point for a general audience?
it’s a good topic and an interesting argument. frankly, though, i disagree in a couple ways.
first, b/c i think that the term elitist implies not only specialized knowledge, but also the attitude that it’s ok, or even good, for the knowledge to remain locked within a closed circle of people. elitism is snobbery, it’s the idea that some people don’t deserve or can’t appreciate that knowledge. and i’m not sure that’s what daniel means to say.
but even if his premise is simply that it’s a fact that only a certain few will appreciate something–dance, in this case–and shouldn’t be viewed as a problem, i still don’t agree. but that’s a matter of opinion, not logic, i think. i can appreciate that daniel is not interested in spending his limited energy educating the public, or trying to reach people who aren’t listening. he’d probably rather be making dances, whether the general public gets them or not. for me, though, dance–unlike model trains or neurology–is a form of communication. i dance because i love to move, to feel free in space, but if i’m going to perform or make dances, i am communicating, and i want the average person to be able to understand me. that’s just my nature–i’m a natural advocate, and if i feel i’ve discovered something interesting or enlightening or freeing, i want to share it with others. not just with a select few: with anyone.
like i said, that’s just me. it’s a matter of choice and individual style. but i’m not alone. daniel’s post may be in response to an ongoing discussion on this blog and others about the audience, and what they are owed by performers. i think a lot of dancers want their work to be understood by average people. in a way, the average folks keep us honest. i’m not fully sure i trust the art world to really know what’s beautiful or effective, to tell the truth.
a last plug for trying to expand the circle of appreciators: if we don’t try to get more people interested in modern dance, who’s going to be watching in ten years?
14 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I dance to communicate with an audience. I use dance to communicate. The exchange happens, no matter what my intention is. I am not attached to what it is about for me, so the conversation of “getting it and not getting it” doesn’t apply. What I mean is, the experience is about what people see and how it makes them feel. Not if they get, that it is about my friend who passed away or the war or feminism or whatever. Effective dance, however, can clearly communicate the choreographer’s intention meeting the audience right at his/her side. I admire that. Being inside works like that and viewing on the outside feels amazing – like a stimulating conversation with someone you respect.
I also don’t think that movement as a form of communication is the BEST tool for everyone to use. I would love endless conversations relying only on body language but do not think my way is the right way and the best way. (And that, by the way, is how I interpret elitism – someone thinking some way is the best and the right way.) The viewer has so much to offer me, the exchange is two ways. The artist needs the people interested in her work and the people need the artist. I disagree that all artists are elitist. I totally disagree.
Comment by silver — November 27, 2007 @ 9:59 am
1. Amanda, what do you mean by “average people”? Who is average? You? Me?
Also, of course I’m interested in reaching out to people - that’s why over the last year I’ve had my blogs explaining my process, having informal showings at Joe’s for people to ask questions and trying to be very clear about what my present work is about. Yet, no matter how hard I try (and I could try harder) most people won’t get it as it is too far from there experience, interest or norm. Just like I, for the life of me, just don’t get NASCAR.
2. Silver, yea the artist need people/audiences, but how many? Everyone? Not likely. The MOST popular musicians sell 10 million CD in the US - that is 3% of the population. My mother just doesn’t get Jay-Z, she feels completely excluded from his music because of the way it sounds, its content and its image. Should he work to educate my mother so she can appreciate his work? Or is it her responsibility to understand the socio-economic and racial constructs that led to the development of Hip Hop culture and hence his work? Both? Neither?
Comment by Daniel Burkholder — November 27, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Daniel, Neither. I don’t know how Jay-Z feels about your mother. Maybe he’s elitist. There is an exchange happening - regardless. And, why the question, “how many?” I guess it matters if you are hoping to make a lot of money. Are artists trying to appeal to everyone? I feel thrown by the word “elitist.”
Comment by silver — November 27, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
In a conversation on the subject, my friend wrote:
Comment by silver — November 27, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
i too was thrown by the choice and use of the word -
from meriam webster
main entry - elite
1 asingular or plural in construction : the choice part : cream bsingular or plural in construction : the best of a class csingular or plural in construction : the socially superior part of society d: a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence e: a member of such an elite —usually used in plural
2: a typewriter type providing 12 characters to the linear inch
elitism
Main Entry: elit·ism
1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery
3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite
Comment by Anonymous Director — November 27, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
i like ilana’s friend’s comment a lot:
if we strive to understand, and strive to make available to others what we do
then we are not elitist
that makes sense to me. we can’t reach everyone, but we can extend to them, and hope that they’re interested.
Comment by Amanda Abrams — November 27, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
I ask the question “how many?” because it gets to the heart of the question of being accessible. If you want people to come to your show, or watch you dance in a park, you have to be doing something they find valuable, interesting, or entertaining. And different people find different things interesting. So, who are you making your art for? You can not make art for everyone, or some vague “average person”.
And, I don’t like the word elitist either, but it is what we, as artists, are called all the time. So, if I’m an elitist than this is how I need to look at it.
Of course, you could call me “a typewriter type providing 12 characters to the linear inch” and I might like that better…
Comment by Daniel Burkholder — November 27, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
daniel, you have a point–the question is sort of, how many people do you try to reach before you give up? how much of a priority do you make it? and i guess the answer depends on the person…
Comment by Amanda Abrams — November 28, 2007 @ 8:17 am
Yes - I drew a big chuckle when i saw “2.” myself. Sometimes you feel like a font, sometimes you don’t!
Oh boy the old what came first the chicken or the egg. Eiterh way - not sure i like being called an elitists if that’s what “they” do.
I do want to know however, besides that word, I think I see where you were going with that post on your blog and thought it was an interesting viewpoint to look at this from.
Comment by Anonymous Director — November 28, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Some art simply is. It is an expression of the maker(s)
Some are describes a problem
Some art suggest a solution
I think art - like celebrity - is its own justification. There is usually a lowest-common-denominator popularity to it. And that is, somehow, right. Everyone is popular with their friends and family (i hope.) As someone who runs a business, and an art business, we are unfortunately necessarily in the position of trying to be more popular. Navigating the time we spend leading, and the time we spend trying to bring people along is a wrenching thing.
I agree with some other posters that elitisim is an attitude. I think that efforts made by creators to connect with the audience in a way they (the audience) are familiar with makes it easier to connect with an audience in a way they are unfamiliar with. I know that is not a concern of some. Those people are either a) popular, b) unprofessional, or c) elitists.
Comment by Rob Bettmann — November 29, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
breakaway casino bonus code…
redundancies growth?blender …
Trackback by breakaway casino bonus code — July 18, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
gambling line…
simplex surrogate:sinners.competes …
Trackback by gambling line — September 13, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Best rape porn movies….
Rape porn. Free rape porn….
Trackback by Dvd porn fake rape for sale. — October 9, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
play crazy casino bj…
prospering stably health beside …
Trackback by play crazy casino bj — November 10, 2008 @ 10:05 pm