DCDanceBlog

this article in today’s ny times is really great. artist as shrink. i want to do that!

seriously, what’s cool is

a) it’s new art
b) it’s focused on psyches, particularly the psyches of strangers
c) the article itself is a non-newsy piece that captures a sliver of life in nyc.

ok, so as art–in a strict sense–it’s perhaps a bit self indulgent, but the ingredients are very appealing.

i just read a comment by “hangups,” providing this link to audience responses to the clarice smith show last month (see earlier post on that show).

wow, it’s really depressing! i had gotten so mad at the washington post reviewer who trashed the show, but it seems that a LOT of people agreed with her! read it–you’ll see that a majority of watchers disliked most of the pieces.

it depresses me most b/c i don’t like to feel so disconnected from the “real” world. i can’t convince myself that living a bubble of art and listening only to what my comporaries think is going to keep my dancing honest and relevant. it’s very strange how we got so disconnected from the rest of the world…

“man, y’all were really something out there,” he said. “that was hot! i’d like to see more of that.” then he hauled his big old upright bass down the steps and walked away.

this was last night, at the torpedo factory in alexandria. we’d performed there, doing structured improvisations among the crowd. this guy was part of the jazz band that had played along with us.

it had turned out to be a great night. i hadn’t known what to think about it ahead of time, but once we were all dressed up and walked out among the crowd, i just went for it. we all did, and we had a great chemistry that hadn’t had a chance to blossom in the studio.

the artistic directors of the company i was dancing with had arranged the performance, and of course it was they who determined the structure of the improvs and what we would wear. one of them decided against us wearing the baggy mechanics’ coveralls that had been part of a similar piece, saying, “that just won’t work.” we dancers were surprised–the coveralls are cool.

but she turned out to be incredibly prescient. the figuring-showing pink and blue outfits she chose instead, as well as our other cute costumes, worked perfectly. we were like nymphs, gliding among the wine sippers in their pedestrian clothes; we were light, graceful–dancers. one of the women at the event, standing in our path and chatting w/ another attendee, saw us coming and said, “oh, here come the beauties!” i don’t think she was referring to our faces or figures; i think it was about the impression we created in our outfits. and then of course there was the bassist who called us “hot.” not a bad thing!

it’s interesting, the choice of whether or not to go with the typical image of the dancer as graceful and beautiful. the fact is that most average people who watch dance want to see beautiful bodies. they don’t want those muscles and lines covered by unattractive, bulky costumes. on the other hand, the dancer as nymph is a stereotype and a box; the great thing about modern dance performance is the ability to be so many things, to play make believe with a lot of looks and personalities that may or may not be attractive.

i’m not sure where i fall in this discussion–i can appreciate both sides. but i think it’s easy to get set in one’s way with either perspective; they key is perhaps to remain flexible and pick and choose along the way.