ok, here we go
Matthew Bourne's show was amazing. You should all see it, really. I went to Boston the next day, and Zeke ended up getting me to ride a bike last weekend, of all things. Not that I was very good at it, but I did have a good time for a while, and it was a gorgeous day.
I finally finished choreographer Antony Tudor's biography. It's a sad story, really, although it could be worse. I've been thinking, with this book and Seymour's autobiography, about the ridiculous camps in dance-- there's Tudor vs Balanchine vs Ashton, the ridiculous American modern dance camps I'm studying now in Dance History, and on and on. By camps, I mean, one school/choreographer has an artistic vision and s/he has these loyal disciples that just refuse to see merit in the work of his/her "rivals." This was true of dancers-- at Jacob's Pillow, modern dance summer haven, dancers wore different colored leotards to distinguish which camp they were in, and they did not sit with other colors at lunch-- and also of dance-goers, especially balletomanes*. With ballet, it seems to come down to "beautiful dance" vs "expressive dance" (ok, the dichotomy exists, more blurred, I'd say, in modern dance as well). But then, you can find this debate in all the arts, I guess. Some people are so hung up on whether or not a painting/song/movie is "beautiful" enough to be "good," and others think that beauty for its own sake is ridiculous and everything should have some deep emotional or political resonance. Can't we appreciate geniuses of beauty/form (Balanchine) and geniuses of feeling (Tudor) equally? It just made me sad reading about the massive ballet personalities writing off Tudor as not musical enough, not beautiful enough, and completely missing the entire point of his work. What a narrow way to think about art. I mean, ok, everyone has aesthetic preferences-- I for the life of me cannot figure out why everyone thinks Paul Taylor is such a genius-- but I guess I just think people shouldn't be so damned tunnel-visioned in their ideas about art. Of course, boundaries have blurred a lot: "contemporary ballet" and "modern dance" share many of the same choreographers, but you can still find the camp-isms, if you will. I'm not saying all art is "good," just that every artist has a different creative vision, and judging a Tudor work by Balanchine criteria is totally ridiculous. I'm aslo not saying that art is for the artist alone-- it's for the audience if it's on display (or onstage). I'm just frustrated with camps, personality cults, and aestheticism cults. Sorry for the rant.
I am tempted to go to this Aesop Rock show at my school. I went to see Le Tigre here, and it felt lame, being, you know, at school. But I do want to see Aesop Rock for $7.
The Dead Milkmen DVD I got in Boston is pretty amazing. Everyone who can should come to Nellie McKay with me on March 30.
This article both gives me reason to weep for the long-dead punk rockness of my neighbor, and reason to buy chocolate. Also, I'm pierced. The end.
*I think Balletomania is funny. And fascinating, really. Hello, let's discredit an art form by worshipping it instead of more objectively appreciating its values and criticizing what needs to be criticized. I'm writing a book, by the way. I mean not yet, not really, I may discuss it more later... Anyway, I'm going to read this book, or one of it's other issues, this summer. I'm intrigued.
I finally finished choreographer Antony Tudor's biography. It's a sad story, really, although it could be worse. I've been thinking, with this book and Seymour's autobiography, about the ridiculous camps in dance-- there's Tudor vs Balanchine vs Ashton, the ridiculous American modern dance camps I'm studying now in Dance History, and on and on. By camps, I mean, one school/choreographer has an artistic vision and s/he has these loyal disciples that just refuse to see merit in the work of his/her "rivals." This was true of dancers-- at Jacob's Pillow, modern dance summer haven, dancers wore different colored leotards to distinguish which camp they were in, and they did not sit with other colors at lunch-- and also of dance-goers, especially balletomanes*. With ballet, it seems to come down to "beautiful dance" vs "expressive dance" (ok, the dichotomy exists, more blurred, I'd say, in modern dance as well). But then, you can find this debate in all the arts, I guess. Some people are so hung up on whether or not a painting/song/movie is "beautiful" enough to be "good," and others think that beauty for its own sake is ridiculous and everything should have some deep emotional or political resonance. Can't we appreciate geniuses of beauty/form (Balanchine) and geniuses of feeling (Tudor) equally? It just made me sad reading about the massive ballet personalities writing off Tudor as not musical enough, not beautiful enough, and completely missing the entire point of his work. What a narrow way to think about art. I mean, ok, everyone has aesthetic preferences-- I for the life of me cannot figure out why everyone thinks Paul Taylor is such a genius-- but I guess I just think people shouldn't be so damned tunnel-visioned in their ideas about art. Of course, boundaries have blurred a lot: "contemporary ballet" and "modern dance" share many of the same choreographers, but you can still find the camp-isms, if you will. I'm not saying all art is "good," just that every artist has a different creative vision, and judging a Tudor work by Balanchine criteria is totally ridiculous. I'm aslo not saying that art is for the artist alone-- it's for the audience if it's on display (or onstage). I'm just frustrated with camps, personality cults, and aestheticism cults. Sorry for the rant.
I am tempted to go to this Aesop Rock show at my school. I went to see Le Tigre here, and it felt lame, being, you know, at school. But I do want to see Aesop Rock for $7.
The Dead Milkmen DVD I got in Boston is pretty amazing. Everyone who can should come to Nellie McKay with me on March 30.
This article both gives me reason to weep for the long-dead punk rockness of my neighbor, and reason to buy chocolate. Also, I'm pierced. The end.
*I think Balletomania is funny. And fascinating, really. Hello, let's discredit an art form by worshipping it instead of more objectively appreciating its values and criticizing what needs to be criticized. I'm writing a book, by the way. I mean not yet, not really, I may discuss it more later... Anyway, I'm going to read this book, or one of it's other issues, this summer. I'm intrigued.