posted February 17, 2000 08:24            

Capacitor for instance, they juggle and do acrobatics, don't they? Is this the next evolutionary stage in modern dance, or a wannabe circus peformance that incorporates modern dance steps? Are glow balls and bungee cords legitimate modern dance props? And who's to say otherwise anyway?

But how do you know when to draw a line, if there is a line, between modern or post-modern dance and dancing with a parasol on a tightrope?

No disparagement intended, I'd really like to hear opinions on what constitutes modern dance and where such aerial groups as Capacitor, Zaccho, Project Bandaloop and Flyaway Productions are taking their art (besides up).

posted February 17, 2000 11:02            

Art is essentially creative problem solving; the problem of reflecting the human soul. Any media or material can work for this. I believe that modern dance and modern art performance should be judge on the experience of the final product rather than the materials used. Was it moving? Did the audience leave understanding something about themselves that they did not understand when entering the theater? or did the show just distract the audience from themselves and their problems? These questions seem more pertinent than whether juggling props and ropes were used.

posted February 17, 2000 11:19            

On the whole, I take a pragmatic view - something that the English are famous for. I see little point in trying to define where dance stops and mime/circus etc. starts.

Momix use a lot of props and gymnastic ability is important for what they do. Dance like Deborah Colker and Decoufle can amaze with wit, beauty, gymnastics and tricks. Modern Circus can do the same.

posted February 17, 2000 12:46            

Jodi has agreed to be introduced. Jodi Lomask is artistic director and choreographer of Capacitor, the dance group that Sherri has raved about in other CriticalDance topics. I have invited a few other choreographers of aerial and other cutting edge modern dance to participate in this discussion. Hopefully, these artists will share with us their perspectives into what drives their innovative work.

I think the distinction you make between the artist's intention to create art and the performer's intention to entertain is at the heart of the matter. Isn't the affect on the audience subjective, though? What if the audience just doesn't get it? I realize this is a little like asking if a tree falls and nobody hears it, does it make a sound.

Stuart, if there is no need for distinctions, what separates different art forms or genres? Is water ballet, for instance, really a form of ballet?

posted February 17, 2000 14:43            

-many traditionally trained dancers had little,mostly no experience working with props. It really is a whole technique unto itself and requires separate training.

-there is always the "danger" element, which is what makes it so exciting to watch. I've gotten hit with heavy props several times, in rehearsal and performance, and it's not fun.

-when you use non-traditional elements, theatres/venues are often leery to accomodate special needs. For example, we wanted to do a special piece using a thin film of water over plastic sheeting. (used like a flat water slide). This particular theatre which we wanted to do it in, was going to make us sign a special insurance waiver because of their worries about the floor, leakage, etc. Ironically, this particular venue had always billed itself as encouraging of "emerging, cutting edge experimental artists". Which seemed rather funky, as they were not incredibly supportive of our idea. In fact, we couldn't do it for that very reason.

-HAving said all this, I would still encourage folks to work with props. You can come up with fascinating stuff.

posted February 17, 2000 15:18            

But I do see it as a different point as to whether these styles can be formally separated. The word 'ballet' is a useful test case of whether you can categorise dance forms. As you and I know, Michael, there are those who seek to define ballet in a narrow way and then use the definition to exclude much of the current work of ballet companies. On the other hand dancers such as Deborah Bull of the Royal Ballet and Dana Casperson of Ballett Frankfurt have no problem with accepting Forsythe as, not only a ballet choreographer, but one of the most significant of the last part of the 20th Century. I find no use in debating the point whether Forsythe's cutting edge work is ballet or not. I'd rather discuss the work on its own terms.

Decoufle is an interesting example of a choreographer who takes what he wants and needs from a wide range of disciplines. His show 'Shazam' is a mix of modern dance, illusion and circus and his company has dancers and actor/dancers. Not only does it use props to great effect , but also live video, recorded film and mirrors. It really is a wonder and one of the reasons for this is that he is prepared to break down the barriers between supposedly different forms.

But we do love categories and the fact that 'Shazam' was a difficult work to describe meant that a lot of London dance fans (almost including me) missed out on one of the best dance experiences of the year. I see no point in trying to pin his work down to a particular category. But it is an immensely entertaining as well as often beautiful experience, which also makes for difficulties with the attempt at an entertainment/art divide.

The border between Fine Art and Video has become very blurred recently, but I actually find video installations the most interesting part of most contemporary art shows, so I accept that the artists call themselves artists and accept their work on their terms.

At its most basic is the general question, 'Is it Art?' I think the general Arts view here in the UK is that its not a term that can be defined in a way that will differentiate between art and non-art. Worse, some of those who wish to do this, such as Mayor Guilliani (spelling?) wish to use it as a means of exclusion. Reminders of some ballet fundamentalists.

I guess my view can be summarised as - allow the artist to define himself in the way that he or she chooses.

Jodi, from what I've read I would really like to see your company, but I suspect that I'll have to come to the US to do that. Have you come across Decoufle? Great to have your views on the site.

posted February 27, 2000 10:31            

The pointe shoe as a prop - now that's something I hadn't thought of. The pointe shoe extended dancers into another plane, if not dimension, of dancing. A retired pro ballerina told me that learning to be en pointe was like a entering a whole new level of existence. Choreographers such as Alonzo King, and to a lesser extent Enrico Labayen, have taken pointe further by using it in a contemporary vocabulary.

I don't know the origin of the pointe shoe, and whether it's introduction was received as an innovation or a gimmick. That might be a good topic for the Criticaldance ballet forum.

Then there's a more mundane prop that we take for granted, the electric light. As far as I know, the first modern dancer to use colored electric lights was Loie Fuller. She was an American in Paris in the late 19th century when and where the impressionist painters were fascinated by light. Fuller made dramatic use of lighting through her silk costumes, and even invented lighting equipment. Her entourage included several lighting technicians.

Today nobody gives much thought to the legitimacy of colored lighting in classical ballet, let alone modern dance.

But, but, but...pointe shoes are worn on the feet, and feet are what dancin' is about, right? Are not pointe shoes comparable to a painter's brushes? Can we fairly compare garments or tools for the feet with fire torches, glow balls, colored lights, and ropes?

posted February 27, 2000 11:43            

The question in the quality of the work in the air or with props is a different issue than their validity. It is true that whether you use these devises or not, the content of the work must be there for it to be sucessful in whatever way you or your audience determine "sucess."

posted February 27, 2000 12:12            

Dancing in zero gravity had never occured to me, but it seems inevitable.

You say, "Modern Dance is about exploring and breaking the limits of the movement of the human body...." Do you think that's true of dance as a whole? Classical ballet certainly breaks limits, and sometimes parts of the feet and legs in doing so.

posted February 27, 2000 21:25            

But coming back down to earth, I feel too often that props are misused. The choreography becomes too dependent on the props and much of the "meaning" of the piece is lost. Props themselves aren't necessarily bad. SFB's Val Caniparoli's "Lady of the Camellias" uses a bed. And so did Norb Vesak's "The Ecstasy of Rita Joe" which also used film and imaginative lighting etc. Yet in neither case was the message lost. But perhaps ballet-trained choreographers have stricter rules to abide by. Modern choreographers perhaps tend to get overwhelmed by the props and let them take over the work. The exception of course is Pina Bausch.

posted February 29, 2000 22:43            

Yes,en pointe is not considered an extension of the foot,and as such a prop!(michael, and you are very funny)nor is the wonder of lighting and the familiar costumes and masks. With additions such as bungee cords, hoops, loops, juggling, stilts (and maybe even those simple tables and chairs) add dimension to modern dance, they too will be accepted as extensions. Dancing is certainly more than “foot art” as you or azlan said, lighting truly makes a difference! And sound! Props of any kind stimulate movement in new ways and if they meet the emotional criteria as art enhancement, they will be incorporated successfully by some, and not so successfully, by others.

the most difficult task for an audience is to come with an open-mind to any performance with new choreographers and new media, since preconceptions are so pervasive, and of course the most difficult task for the choreographers is to be convincing.

A genre such as Modern art performance provides a legitimate “name” for persons who seek emotional and intellectual direction or focus and at the same time opens the power of dance movement , whether it be on the ground or in the air, to new groups and audiences, audiences that may not have realized that dance is something that they can appreciate.(loved the example of the exciting almost-missed performers in the uk who didn't fit into any category.)when we are in a linear world, it can be exciting and invigorating to have a linear category that explores non-linear territory. props in dance can do this, don't you think? s

posted March 04, 2000 05:26            

Perhaps the reason that I have no problem about props and aerial work in dance is that my love of modern dance started with what is now called the Momix 'Classical' programme. At Sadler's Wells we saw a TV set on Pendleton's head, dancers on skis and two beautiful works, one within a tent suspended by an umbrella and the other with giant balloons. There was also the pdd with the wondrous 8' high metal gyre - a bit like two circles joined at 90 degrees. Even the hardest heartest critic who hates Momix loved this piece. Later in 'Passion' we saw a piece, using gymnastic kit, that imitated flight. I loved it all, but I have to say that there has been a law of diminishing returns, but I think this is more to do with choreographic invention rather than the use of props. I am delighted that the baton has been passed on to new companies and choreographers. How do uou see Momix inthe development of this form, Sherri and Merry?

As regards, Merry's point about the use of such props in modern dance, I can only speak about the UK experience. The focus of the past few years by several companies has been a more sophisticated use of lighting and back and front projection. Perhaps this is partly because of the need to perform in a wide range of small venues where it may not be possible to suspend the necessary equipment for aerial work. DV8 do use aerial work, on a couple of occasions, to good effect in their most recent full length work.

posted March 04, 2000 22:55            

Kim's work sounds similar and intriguing as well.

So much of modern dance in the us seems to depend on monetary support as well as talented choreography. Grant money while available, does not seem all that easy to access and even with moderate success in receiving public or private money, performing artists still dance and work for the love of art rather than for any the salaries they might receive.

i am told that Cirque is an exception to this as that company pays well; even enough for health care and renting an apartment! wow!!!that is a giant step (and they call themselves circus artists) Cirque would probably work under your "name" suggestion, but not sure if other prop-using companies would want to define their art in such a narrow way.

posted March 05, 2000 10:13            

The March 2 & 3, 2000 performance of LINES Contemporary Ballet (Mountain View, California) included an untitled modern dance work by The Foundry choreographed by Christian Burns and Alex Ketley in which two of the dancers recited poetry as they danced. They were literally wired for sound, each with a tiny microphone and small transmitter on the belt in the small of the back. The equipment didn't seem to interfere with their dancing.

Although their movements were athletic, holding the partner upside down for example, they were slow, allowing the dancers to speak without getting out of breath. Only once or twice was there some brief static as the microphone brushed against a partner's arm.

I saw this "preview" piece on two consecutive nights. The second night it seemed to work much better; it seemed a little more polished and the sound was loud enough to understand the voices more clearly. While I didn't care for it on the first night, with the louder voices I thought this piece worked very well.

posted March 05, 2000 22:23            

quote:

---

what will get bums on seats

---

posted March 06, 2000 20:16            

once choreographers literally and figuratively create works primarily "for audience approval" and not from their inner sensibilities which may be stirred by audience reaction but ideally are not fueled by them, then perhaps a known art form loses its integrity.

posted March 06, 2000 22:04            

Watching Morris' "L'Allegro..." was a revelation of sorts to me. It showed that choreography can work at many levels. In this work, while there are many subtle hints to greater meanings, there are also the little less subtle gestures to provoke audience laughter. So, even works without props must find balance between "art" and "entertainment."

posted March 07, 2000 10:59            

I studied with Bessie Schonberg in a choreographers workshop, the year before she past away and we did studies on props. We were supposed to find an object around the area (its in the woods you realize) that would give us an impetus for movement. Some people choose a piece of wood, a pillow. I choose my matress. I lugged that matress to the studio everyday. Regardless of the prop, Bessie would stop us if we left that prop just sitting onstage by its self while you did dancey, dancey on the other side of the stage. She said that the prop was our partner and to never underestimate its meaning and significance to your statement. If you got her point, she would never paise you or even call you by your name, just a simple, "Congratulations Choreographer". She was a remarkable woman.