What is modern dance?
MichaelG
Lobelia Wrote
"..........But why I'm responding is my surprise that you've eliminated much
of Graham. How definitely a Modernist she is in her rebellion against what
was extant..........."
With my limited understanding of what defines, in general, modern, post
modern, etc. I hesitate to comment too specifically. But I would think to
eliminate any aspect of Graham in a discussion about "What is modern dance
?" is to dismiss some of the true genesis of american Modern Dance. Please
help me me out. Is it true that historically the first real break from
traditional theatrical concepts in dance was done by Vaslav Nijinsky? I am
thinking of Le Sacre du Printemps which in his inovative ideas were still
rooted in some aspects of character or regional/ritualistic dancing. Even
though he did utilize such ideas as turning the legs in, not only neutral
but toes turned in. I can't recall which he created first Le Sacre or
Afternoon of the Faun which Is where he really broke with tradition and
experimented with a detached abstract way of telling the story.
The next artist I think of is Isadora Duncan for obvious reasons. I think
Graham was the first American to seriously explore modern ideas for
theatrical dance. I may very well be wrong about this. If I am, please
correct my historical misconcept. I would be very interested to know of any
American who may have preceded her.
"Naming historical styles helps us define what we think about them. When
the
boundaries are unclear it makes us think even harder about what we've seen."
Perhaps when the boundaries are unclear there are none. There in lies the
rub. Our attemptd to define what it is when there are no parameters in
which to work. When one is educated in the various nuances of different
styles one can ponder how to explain what each one or all of them are. Or
maybe one can simlply wave the white flag, fall back and say..."I don't know
how to explain it, but I know it when I see it."
Peace,
MG
Sandi Kurtz
> X-41471-Poster: "MichaelG" <garri...@earthlink.net>
>
> Lobelia Wrote
>
>
>
> "..........But why I'm responding is my surprise that you've eliminated much
> of Graham. How definitely a Modernist she is in her rebellion against what
> was extant..........."
>
> With my limited understanding of what defines, in general, modern, post
> modern, etc. I hesitate to comment too specifically. But I would think to
> eliminate any aspect of Graham in a discussion about "What is modern dance
> ?" is to dismiss some of the true genesis of american Modern Dance. Please
> help me me out.
I agree with David's comment that American modern dance is not necessarily
modernist, so that Graham might be included in one category and not in the
other.
Is it true that historically the first real break from
> traditional theatrical concepts in dance was done by Vaslav Nijinsky?
It depends on what you consider to be traditional theatrical concepts. If
by that you refer to the evening-length classical ballet of Petipa
(analogous to the 'well-made play' of Eugene Scribe, et al), then Fokine
would likely be the 'first' to break with those conventions.
I am
> thinking of Le Sacre du Printemps which in his inovative ideas were still
> rooted in some aspects of character or regional/ritualistic dancing. Even
> though he did utilize such ideas as turning the legs in, not only neutral
> but toes turned in. I can't recall which he created first Le Sacre or
> Afternoon of the Faun which Is where he really broke with tradition and
> experimented with a detached abstract way of telling the story.
Faune came before Sacre. Some people argue that Faune is still very
influenced by Fokine stylistically, and that all of N's work is influenced
by F's admonition to create a new vocabulary with every work (whether F
was able to do this or not himself is a different question)
>
> The next artist I think of is Isadora Duncan for obvious reasons. I think
> Graham was the first American to seriously explore modern ideas for
> theatrical dance.
Again, it makes a difference what you are considering as 'modern ideas.'
For all their radical nature in her time, Duncan's theories about
movement were not especially modern. (I often think the Romantics would
have been very fond of her, especially Goethe) For early modernist work
you might want to look at Laban, and dancers who came from his orbit,
especially Wigman.
sandi kurtz
Bang2B
one's time wouldn't necessarily make one modernist. I agree with Sandi that
Isadora Duncan was much more a romantic, perhaps a romantic classicist. A
genuine and clearly modernist break with convention is Merce Cunningham's
rejection of the hierarchy of space, stage space. Front was no longer more
important, center was no longer more important etc. These attitudes were also
brought to bear on the body itself in his technique. Center is not more
important there either, just one among many points of balance.
David
Nanatchka
>genuine and clearly modernist break with convention is Merce Cunningham's
>rejection of the hierarchy of space, stage space.
To me there is a correlation with Cubism here. (Two Merce threads in one
day....and the Bang Group tonight. Wow.)
Nanatchka
db
Sandi Kurtz wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, MichaelG wrote:
>
> > X-41471-Poster: "MichaelG" <garri...@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Lobelia Wrote
> >
> >
> >
> > "..........But why I'm responding is my surprise that you've eliminated much
> > of Graham. How definitely a Modernist she is in her rebellion against what
> > was extant..........."
> >
> > With my limited understanding of what defines, in general, modern, post
> > modern, etc. I hesitate to comment too specifically. But I would think to
> > eliminate any aspect of Graham in a discussion about "What is modern dance
> > ?" is to dismiss some of the true genesis of american Modern Dance. Please
> > help me me out.
>
> I agree with David's comment that American modern dance is not necessarily
> modernist, so that Graham might be included in one category and not in the
> other.
>
> This is true, but I still don't understand why people don't think that Graham,
> a rebel who created her own vocabulary, an angular one that has clear links
> with Modernist art, and invented new, rather Cubist ways of expressing
> narrative, isn't a died in the wool Modernist. Explain.
>
> > The next artist I think of is Isadora Duncan for obvious reasons. I think
> > Graham was the first American to seriously explore modern ideas for
> > theatrical dance.
>
> Again, it makes a difference what you are considering as 'modern ideas.'
> For all their radical nature in her time, Duncan's theories about
> movement were not especially modern. (I often think the Romantics would
> have been very fond of her, especially Goethe) For early modernist work
> you might want to look at Laban, and dancers who came from his orbit,
> especially Wigman.
>
> sandi kurtz
I agree that Duncan, though a rebel and an individualist, is perhaps not really a
Modernist. To me, she has visual links with the Art Nouveau of her time. I
wish I knew more about what Laban's and Wigman's work looked like. Anybody
reviving--or channeling--Wigman these days? --Lobelia
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
nana...@aol.comedit says...
> To me there is a correlation with Cubism here. (Two Merce threads in one
> day....and the Bang Group tonight. Wow.)
. . .And the Bang Group was quite wonderful. It's so nice to meet
someone online and then find out that his work was just as witty,
intelligent, and creative as I thought it would be.
Congratulations, David.
--
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg
AT
one could be (just as "Giselle" was once modern, and "Jason and Medea.")
Now, she looks all soft and cuddly, and a bit overdone. But that's because
she had so many imitators, we can't recapture how revolutionary it would
have seemed to have been in that audience, listening to that music, seeing
that dance, on that stage.
Same with Graham. I don't see how she can NOT be considered a modernist.
In the 30s, she was everything Modern. Thoroughly Modern Martha.
There's a divide in this century that occurred in midcentury between the
abstract expressionists (like Jackson Pollack) and the many schools that
followed (Mark Rothko) (with apologies to the art historians out there; I
know this is oversimplified). Martha is on the far side of that divide now,
and so she looks old-fashioned because her dances had narrative content.
But she's the Queen of dance fragmentation -- not only the angled movements,
but narrative fragmentation. Her stories aren't told linearly, but through
the juxtaposition of fragments which the audience has to put together.
Re Nijinsky's Sacre, it's a ballet. It's a character ballet, using steps
from character dance, a forgotten genre now, but very normal in his day.
The score may have been revolutionary, but I think "Sacre" is overrated as a
breaking point. I saw an American Indian dance troupe the night after I
first saw "Sacre," and it was amazing how close those movements were! One
of Nijinsky's sources was drawings and prints of Siberian dancers; Northern
Rim theory kicks in here...
Someone wrote about Isadora being a Romantic, and that's interesting because
now she does seem Romantic to us. But I think, back then, she was very
anti-Romantic. Post-Realism, Super-Realism, perhaps, but not Romantic. She
was not art for art's sake. For her, dance was a Cause. And Romanticism,
in dance, anyway, was pretty, and, despite the rose petals, Isadora wasn't
about being pretty.
If anyone is interested in these topics and has not yet done so, I'd
recommend Elizabeth Kendall's "Where She Danced" and the late Joe Mazo's
"Prime Movers."
One last thought about Graham: I'm one who believes in the
classical-romantic dichotomy, and this question is posed within that
context. Is Graham a classicist or a Romantic?
alexandra
www.balletalert.com
(all 40 days and 40 nights of Leigh Witchel's Diary of a Choreographer are
now up. Check the what's new page.)
db <plai...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37E7D732...@mindspring.com...
Bang2B
making a distinction between modern in the temporal sense and modernist in the
esthetic sense. I agree that the Graham of the thirties was modernist as well
as modern, and yes, influenced by cubism and the mania to present multiple
points of view at once. Didn't someone say one of her solos looked like
someone giving birth to a cube? Was it Fanny Brice? Will Rogers? Edwin Denby?
(who said it not who was the cube). Anyway I think Graham stopped doing
modernist work when she began to become literary.
David
Bang2B
>wish I knew more about what Laban's and Wigman's work looked like. Anybody
>reviving--or channeling--Wigman these days? --Lobelia
>
Good question. Suzanne Linke, the german soloist does many of Wigman's solos.
There was an influence from Laban on Hanya Holm who passed it on, to a degree,
to Nikolais. My partner in my current concert, Sara Hook is a certified Laban
movement analyst and we have used the laban movement scales and theory in our
work together. Sara also uses the Laban theory in her own work and is
currently making a solo about the german dancer Valeska Gerdt. I believe the
Limon company occasionally presents a Wigman solo and Beverly Blossom used to
do one too, I think. The Laban Center in London has also influenced much of
the work happening there. London is a hotbed of modern dance creativity now
and Valerie Preston Dunlap who used to head the London Laban Center emphasized
the use of the theory in choreography while the New York Laban folk tend (sorry
to overgeneralize) to emphasize movement analysis. The legacy of Laban's work
is hotly disputed, which I think is a good thing. The dispute, I mean. I'm
dancing again tonight and words fluster me.
David
Manhattnik
old-fashioned?
Or was that some other art form in question?
Maybe it's 'cause it's my birthday, or 'cause I have a new toy to play with
(NOT purple), but when I read this thread, all I can think of is Danny Kaye
singing "Chaps who once tapped aren't tapping anymore, they're doing
Choreography....." That's one of my favorite numbers of all time....
-- Manhattnik
All dances are too long, but some are more too-long than others.
Nanatchka
>but narrative fragmentation.
>From: "AT" nax
Well, I would't want to give Merce Cunningham that *exact* title, but I think
fragmentation certainly is more paramount in his work than in Martha's. Martha
Graham used a proscenium stage, with a definite front, and of course there was
a musical thread under the work. Cunningham fragmented the stage space the same
way Picasso broke down the space of the canvas--there is also a correspondence
with late Cezanne, I think --not a borrowing, just an interesting similarity.
Since lately Merce has been using the computer to make up phrases and gestures,
he has broken down the body into its component parts, and wittled the phrase
down into "bytes," or something as close to that as he can approach.
Fragmentation itself is beginning to seem dated now--it is hard to consider
"The Wasteland" as modern anymore, for instance.
Nanatchka
AT
fragmentation.... I did say "narrative fragmentation" deliberately. One
obvious example, the three persons of Joan of Arc in Seraphic Dialogue. As
choreography, Merce is much more fragmented, I agree. And now I hear that
any kind of form at all is verboten among the young and modern.
The problem of defining what is '"modern" now is a big one. I think it's
more of an issue after periods which have defined themselves primarily as
being "modern." (Ars Nova was modern once. Was Petipa? I'd argue not in
the same way, because he had no modernist (not Modernist) manifesto.
Alexandra
Nanatchka <nana...@aol.comedit> wrote in message
news:19990922164115...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
AT
(as was Fokine)? Aesthetically, as well as temporally. (I agree with the
distinction you're making. There's a difference between something that was
made today and something that's revolutionary.) Or did I just miss a lot of
posts, and you're really talking about Modernism as a conscious movement
(which would rule out Nijinsky). Perhaps the distinction is what people
called themselves, versus what we call them. (Always allowing for the
problem that there may be lots of people who'd love to be called Modernist
because it was In, but you might look at it think it looks like it was
ordered out of a Sears Roebucks catalogue.
Alexandra
Bang2B <ban...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990922093048...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
twnk...@ix.netcom.com
May I then wish you a very happy birthday? Twinkletoes
----------
> From: Manhattnik <manha...@aol.comnoQspam>
> To: ballet...@world.std.com
> Subject: Re: What is modern dance?
> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 2:13 PM
>
> X-41584-Poster: manha...@aol.comnoQspam (Manhattnik)
Manhattnik
Of course you may. It was lovely, although I may not be able to fit into my
tights for awhile. Thanks for the kind wishes.
Moons1295
Giannina
Moons1295
Giannina
Bang2B
>any kind of form at all is verboten among the young and modern.
>
I don't hear that. Who have you heard forbids it, and why?
David
Bang2B
>made today and something that's revolutionary.) <
Yes, and a further distinction between revolutionary and modernist
revolutionary.
The application of Euclidean geometry to painting in the Renaissance to
establish perspective was revolutionary, but not modernist revolutionary.
David
AT
Perhaps it's just a local philosophy, but I got that from the grad students
I had in a dance aesthetics class two years ago. I took it as a rebellion
against formalism, a throwing off of the rules. I think they were taught
it, actually, in composition classes, but whether it was one instructor's
idea or a Trend, I couldn't tell. I will say I've seen lots of dances that
don't seem to have any form, but that used to be a valid criticism
Alexandra
AT
Bang2B
amount to formlessness? It could as much result in "new" forms. My early
comp training was from people who were associated with the Judson era. They
had rejected Louis Horst composition rules but there are plenty of other formal
structures, strategies and systems. Task/activity based structure,
accumulation, simultaneity etc. I've just never heard anyone admit the
possibility of formlessness let alone elevate it to a virtue. What grad school
was this? I've seen dances that don't seem consciously structured, they often
aren't very good. But then plenty that have been consciously structured aren't
any good either.
David
MichaelG
Nanatchka's statement about Danny Kaye and his song which indicates no one
dances anymore they do "choreography" reminded me of one of my favorite
movie lines..........."Is it modern?"..........Can you name the movie? I
betchya can.....And to whose choreography was it directed? Just for fun.
:-)
Since this discussion has left me in the dust.....fascinating as it is.
Peace
MG
MichaelG
ism (ąz“…m) n. Informal. A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory:
“Formalism, by being an ‘ism,’ kills form by hugging it to death” HUH?
(Peter Viereck). [From -ism.]
mod·ern·ism (mĽd“…r-nąz”…m) n. 1.a. Modern thought, character, or practice.
b. Sympathy with or conformity to modern ideas, practices, or standards. 2.
A peculiarity of usage or style, as of a word or phrase, that is
characteristic of modern times. 3. Often Modernism. The deliberate departure
from tradition and the use of innovative forms of expression that
distinguish many styles in the arts and literature of the 20th century.
re·bel·lion (rą-bµl“y…n) n. 1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a
constituted government. 2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority
or established convention.
modern dance n. A style of theatrical dance that rejects the limitations of
classical ballet and favors movement deriving from the expression of inner
feeling.
Should the pioneers of "modern" dance have the suffix "ism" attached to it,
since there was no system or theory established at that time? Or is it
retrospective? Weren't they by virtue of being pioneers essentially
searching for their own way of expression rooted in an individualistic idea?
Was it a rejection of the limitations of classical ballet or simply a
yearning for self expression? Historically was it rooted in a collective
attempt to establish a doctrine, system or theory? Or did it just work out
that way? And perhaps "ism" should be avoided in reference to any form of
contemporary modern dance for the same reason? Does not an artist like Mark
Morris break all traditions whether established modern or classical by
virtue of his uniqueness? When one breaks with the modern tradition does
that act then become modern and all else that preceded it become
......classic? Are the Trackaderos modern?
Is it modernistic when an individual breaks with tradition because it is
simply new? Or is it necessary for his or her ideas to be embraced by
another or others for legitimacy? Classicism is such because it has been
embraced by many for a long time. When does a person's work become modern
or modernistic as opposed to just new? Is there a level of acceptance
necessary or is it simply modern by virtue of it's existence?
That's right I used to drive my teachers crazy.
*I reserve the right to distance myself from any of these notions as they
are only meant to inspire discussion. Ignore, ponder or rip at will.
MG
Manhattnik
Giannina
>>
Thanks, Giannina. I had a great day with the kids.
Sandi Kurtz
> > Again, it makes a difference what you are considering as 'modern ideas.'
> > For all their radical nature in her time, Duncan's theories about
> > movement were not especially modern. (I often think the Romantics would
> > have been very fond of her, especially Goethe) For early modernist work
> > you might want to look at Laban, and dancers who came from his orbit,
> > especially Wigman.
> >
> > sandi kurtz
>
> I agree that Duncan, though a rebel and an individualist, is perhaps not really a
> Modernist. To me, she has visual links with the Art Nouveau of her time. I
> wish I knew more about what Laban's and Wigman's work looked like. Anybody
> reviving--or channeling--Wigman these days? --Lobelia
>
I think of Loie Fuller as more of an Art Nouveau person -- she was so very
focused on what it all looked like. Duncan seems less involved in the
appearance of the work as in its motional quality. (And her emphasis on
nature, which is why I always think Goethe would have liked her)
There are a few videos of Laban's work floating around in some German
archives, but they are less compelling (as examples of modernism) than his
theoretical work, especially the effort and space harmony materials. Mary
Ann Newhall, who is currently working in New Mexico, does a scary
reconstruction of Wigman's Witch Dance, and the company at the University
of Washington did Pastorale a couple years ago, but I'm not sure who else
in the US is working with that rep.
sandi kurtz
>
>
>
Bang2B
musics don't fit the definitions offered. Esthetic entities are rarely
adequately defined by dictionaries. Modernism existed in other arts as well as
in dance. The "ism" in modernism should be applied and was applied then, as
now, to those it suits. There was plenty of modernist theory by the time
Graham left Denishawn. Louis Horst actively taught her about Kandinsky and
other modern painters. All artists search for their own individual expression
to some degree or other, including artists who are neither modern nor
modernist. Mark Morris works in the well known tradition of American modern
dance in the historic sense. He broke with the "post modern" tradition
prevalent in New York in the early eighties. Which was orthodox enough to have
become a tradition by then. He makes use of moderndance movement too,
liberally so. I don't think he is a modernist. Though I love much of his work.
David
Nanatchka
>dances anymore they do "choreography"
Wasn't me. I cannot even remember which movie that is in: ?? Is it the same one
where he does that modern dance? And remember:The chalice from the palace has
the pill that is poison, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.
Nanatchka
AT
Very interesting definitions. I'll make an attempt to give my answers to
your questions.
>
> Should the pioneers of "modern" dance have the suffix "ism" attached to
it,
> since there was no system or theory established at that time?
Wasn't there a system AND a theory? Weren't some of these people
consciously modern, if not modernist?
Or is it
> retrospective? Weren't they by virtue of being pioneers essentially
> searching for their own way of expression rooted in an individualistic
idea?
Yes. But wasn't that part of being "modern?" Classicists don't spent a
nanosecond worrying about being individualistic. They just do it. Then
they're either uninteresting rulefollowers, or radiant individuals,
depending on the measure of genius.
> Was it a rejection of the limitations of classical ballet or simply a
> yearning for self expression?
First of all, it's time this is said: they didn't really know what classical
ballet was. What passed for ballet in American then did not, shall we say,
represent the highest development of the genre. I'm sure we all know the
story of Isadora seeing Pavlova.
I think there was a yearning for self-expression, and there was also the
sense of being able to make up an entire, new, system of dancing. (We have
to know which generation we're talking about, though: Isadora, Denishawn,
or Graham.) It's so hard, looking back over this horrible, bloody century,
how wonderful it all seemed when Isadora suggested we all wear Greek robes
and there wouldn't be any crime. (Maybe she was right.) Or in the 1930s,
when the world COULD be reinvented for the betterment of mankind. Why not a
better dance?
Historically was it rooted in a collective
> attempt to establish a doctrine, system or theory?
I think for Graham and Louis Horst, it definitely was.
And perhaps "ism" should be avoided in reference to any form of
> contemporary modern dance for the same reason?
Don't quite understand this.
Does not an artist like Mark
> Morris break all traditions whether established modern or classical by
> virtue of his uniqueness?
Isn't the best working definition of modern dance that it IS individual
expression and changes with each generation? The only rule is to constantly
reinvent?
When one breaks with the modern tradition does
> that act then become modern and all else that preceded it become
> ......classic?
No. Difference between traditional, "a classic," and classicism.
Classicism is something very specific, not a synonym for "ballet" or
"old-fashioned," and exists in all eras. It's one of the prime instincts of
Western art, and one way of looking at Western art history is to say we're
either trying to re-establish it or break away from it.
> Is it modernistic when an individual breaks with tradition because it is
> simply new?
Back to "Modernism" or modernistic. Or revolutionary. To me, this is being
revolutionary. I might say "kneejerk revolutionary." I think there's a big
difference between sitting down, as I like to imagine the Greats like Graham
and Humphrey and Taylor and Cunningham having done, and say, "But I don't
want to do that. I want to do this. And I don't care if there's a rule
against it." I think what Graham did that was so different, especially for
a revolutionary, is that she wanted to become an institution.
Revolutionaries are usually happy out there in Tent City. Not Martha. She
wanted to do a system for the New World and she wanted to have a building
named after her.
Or is it necessary for his or her ideas to be embraced by
> another or others for legitimacy?
Legitimacy. Do you mean critics and/or the audience saying, "Wow?" Or
people instantly imitating them? Can't something be great art and exist
outside the mainstream? There are examples of oddballs, and then there are
the leaders (or, at least, the people to whom followers attach themselves.)
Not modern dance by any means, but Ashton is an oddball. In some ways he's
squarely within a tradition, in others he breaks it nine ways to Sunday. He
has no effective imitators. He's still a top dog.
Classicism is such because it has been
> embraced by many for a long time.
I would argue with this very strenuously. Classicism is a very specific
system and a very specific way of looking at art. It has been around a long
time (i.e., since Aristotle) but this statement makes it sound like a rock
to which moss has been attached simply because of the passage of time.
Classicism is a living breathing thing, a sort of taffy that can be
stretched and pulled and twisted into a million different forms, yet remains
always itself. Kinda like the constitution (a product of a neoclassical
era.)
When does a person's work become modern
> or modernistic as opposed to just new?
Doesn't every generation consider itself modern? There are passages in
Bournonville's letters and diaries where he refers to "modern music" or
being "modern," but he doesn't mean it in any of the senses we've been
talking about. Perhaps contemporary? I.e., you can tell it is made today
and not 50 years ago? This whole century has been self-consciously "modern"
in the same way the early 19th was self-consciously Romantic (pass me the
smelling salts, my dear fellow), and the 18th was self-consciously
neoclassical.
Is there a level of acceptance
> necessary or is it simply modern by virtue of it's existence?
Do you mean the difference between something that's really new and wonderful
and didn't exist before and everybody knows it within 30 seconds, or the
stuff that's cutting edge, hip new now, today's wunderkind, standing
classicism on its ear, breaking boundaries, extending traditions, hey look
at me Ma I'm new? I'd say there's a difference!
> That's right I used to drive my teachers crazy.
Why? This is fun!
>
Alexandra
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
garri...@earthlink.net says...
> Should the pioneers of "modern" dance have the suffix "ism" attached to it,
> since there was no system or theory established at that time?
Certainly. There's no reason why the theory can't come after the fact,
to explain what's gone before.
It's the *art* that's important, not the theory.
AT
> It's an interesting thing to ponder. Does tossing out rules about
formalism
> amount to formlessness? It could as much result in "new" forms.
It is interesting. We had some discussions about the difference betwen
structuralism (form with girders, let's say) and formalism (having a form,
in the sense that it's not random, like DaDa, but there's not necessarily a
rigid structure.) And then there are things that have a shape, but not a
form. But the only thing I can think of right now that meets that
definition is an amoeba.
My early
> comp training was from people who were associated with the Judson era.
They
> had rejected Louis Horst composition rules but there are plenty of other
formal
> structures, strategies and systems. Task/activity based structure,
> accumulation, simultaneity etc.
Definitely. These peope were "beyond" that, though.
I've just never heard anyone admit the
> possibility of formlessness let alone elevate it to a virtue. What grad
school
> was this?
My thoughts exactly. (I can't name the school. It's got a very reputable
dance department, and the teacher who was there then isn't there now.) One
of my students found Humphrey's "The Art of Making Dances" and Horst's
"Modern Dance Forms" and reacted to them like a Communist child finding a
Bible. Why have these been hidden from me? she would demand. I think it
might be a good idea to teach silly, old fashioned things like ABA and then
send them out bravely to make something that's anti-ABA. I know a Judson
era comp teacher, at another school here, whose composition classes were:
"Make a dance using a fire hydrant, a stick, a paper bag, and use only two
movements." I'd say that was formal.
I definitely agree that mindless formlessness is not a positive good. I
wondered at the time if it was a misunderstanding of Cunningham and chance.
There's a difference between a great mind using chance, and the rest of us.
I've seen dances that don't seem consciously structured, they often
> aren't very good. But then plenty that have been consciously structured
aren't
> any good either.
Absolutely. Solid structure is no guarantee of success. Nothing is.
Alexandra
AT
what happens, and sometimes the artists get to name their movement
themselves, and it sticks. I can't think of a good reason to explain the
distinction.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg <salz...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.12546ab16...@news.cloud9.net...
Bang2B
Vera Ellen also dances in it, though she's not among the modernes.
David
becca
At 09:13 PM 9/23/99 GMT, you wrote:
>X-41607-Poster: nana...@aol.comedit (Nanatchka)
You guys are a wealth of knowledge!!
First the various deep delving into Modern/formal/non-structured dance...to
the pestle with the true brew...
Wow...how do your minds remember all this stuff.
I hear a joke and can't tell it to someone the next hour!!
bek
becca
last comment as aros.net
Hanging off of buildings:
structured or not???
bek
>It's an interesting thing to ponder. Does tossing out rules about formalism
>amount to formlessness? It could as much result in "new" forms. My early
>comp training was from people who were associated with the Judson era. They
>had rejected Louis Horst composition rules but there are plenty of other
formal
>structures, strategies and systems. Task/activity based structure,
>accumulation, simultaneity etc. I've just never heard anyone admit the
>possibility of formlessness let alone elevate it to a virtue. What grad
school
>was this? I've seen dances that don't seem consciously structured, they often
>aren't very good. But then plenty that have been consciously structured
aren't
>any good either.
>David
becca
At 09:49 AM 9/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>X-41594-Poster: "MichaelG" <garri...@earthlink.net>
>
>Nanatchka's statement about Danny Kaye and his song which indicates no one
>dances anymore they do "choreography" reminded me of one of my favorite
>movie lines..........."Is it modern?"..........Can you name the movie? I
>betchya can.....And to whose choreography was it directed? Just for fun.
>:-)
>
>Since this discussion has left me in the dust.....fascinating as it is.
>
>Peace
>MG
Can't ans. your question, and I am left in the dust too/
bTW:
New address:
bek
MichaelG
>And remember:The chalice from the palace has
>>the pill that is poison, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is
>true.
>>Nanatchka
How Bout.....The hobbit with a goblit has a shoe full of goo! I'm
sorry......
MG
MichaelG
-----Original Message-----
From: becca <be...@aros.net>
To: ballet...@world.std.com <ballet...@world.std.com>
Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: What is modern dance?
>X-41616-Poster: becca <be...@aros.net>
>
>At 09:49 AM 9/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>X-41594-Poster: "MichaelG" <garri...@earthlink.net>
>>
>>"Someone's" statement about Danny Kaye and his song which indicates no
one
>>dances anymore they do "choreography" reminded me of one of my favorite
>>movie lines..........."Is it modern?"..........Can you name the movie? I
>>betchya can.....And to whose choreography was it directed? Just for fun.
>>:-)
>>
>>Since this discussion has left me in the dust.....fascinating as it is.
>>
>>Peace
>>MG
>
I will wait a while longer, before revealing the answer to see if I can get
a winner.
MG
Manhattnik
Maybe you mean me?
MichaelG
>X-41607-Poster: nana...@aol.comedit (Nanatchka)
>
>>Nanatchka's statement about Danny Kaye and his song which indicates no one
>>dances anymore they do "choreography"
>
>Wasn't me. I cannot even remember which movie that is in: ?? Is it the same
one
>where he does that modern dance? And remember:The chalice from the palace
has
>the pill that is poison, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is
true.
>Nanatchka
Sorry! My mistake. Who was BTW I know you are out there.
MG
>
>
MichaelG
>> garri...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>> > Should the pioneers of "modern" dance have the suffix "ism" attached to
>it,
>> > since there was no system or theory established at that time?
Jeffrey Replied
>> Certainly. There's no reason why the theory can't come after the fact,
>> to explain what's gone before.
Hmmmm Application of theory after the art is created....Does that indicate
the artists maybe didn't know what they were really doing...I mean since
they had no theoretical basis for their work. Were they merely grappling in
the dark? It is art after all, not science. I would think Einstein had a
good idea of where he was going with his theory of relativity.....You know,
at least where he wanted to go and then finally got there even though the
route he took may not be the one he expected. You know black holes..gravity
bending light. Where were the artists heading? Did they have a firm theory
in there minds? Did they have an idea where they wanted to go... and did
they get there? Or did they end up somewhere else, and then defined by
themselves after the fact? Or was it ultimately defined by others who
perceived their work after the fact?.......Where the hell am I? Oh yes...I
am here! ;-)
>> It's the *art* that's important, not the theory.
Quite right!
PEACE
MG
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
garri...@earthlink.net says...
> Hmmmm Application of theory after the art is created....Does that indicate
> the artists maybe didn't know what they were really doing...I mean since
> they had no theoretical basis for their work.
It means that such theory as was there was internalized.
It means they were too busy creating to have time for academic exercises.
It means their carts were firmly behind their horses.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
garri...@earthlink.net says...
> How Bout.....The hobbit with a goblit has a shoe full of goo! I'm
> sorry......
You people are so much more literate than I; the only poem I know starts,
"There was a young girl from Nantucket. . . ."
MichaelG
Alexandra:
>Very interesting definitions. I'll make an attempt to give my answers to
>your questions.
Thanks.
Q. Should the pioneers of "modern" dance have the suffix "ism" attached to
>it,
>> since there was no system or theory established at that time?
>
A. Wasn't there a system AND a theory? Weren't some of these people
>consciously modern, if not modernist?
R. Perhaps there was a system. I can't say. I'm pretty sure they were
conscious though.
Q. Or is it
>> retrospective? Weren't they by virtue of being pioneers essentially
>> searching for their own way of expression rooted in an individualistic
>idea?
>
>Yes. But wasn't that part of being "modern?" Classicists don't spent a
>nanosecond worrying about being individualistic. They just do it. Then
>they're either uninteresting rulefollowers, or radiant individuals,
>depending on the measure of genius.
R. Is individualism modern? I think individualism is a classic idea that
is modern in perpetuity. Uninteresting..or radiant. I would guess they
probably had an affinity for the classics and felt they were worth
preserving. I criticize no one for whichever form of expression they
choose.
>
>>Q. Was it a rejection of the limitations of classical ballet or simply a
>> yearning for self expression?
>
>Q. First of all, it's time this is said: they didn't really know what
classical
>ballet was. What passed for ballet in American then did not, shall we say,
>represent the highest development of the genre. I'm sure we all know the
>story of Isadora seeing Pavlova.
R. I believe the Europeans knew what classical ballet was. And yes I agree
that people in the USA really didn't have a clue until late in the 20th
century. I don't know that story but I would love to hear it.
>
>I think there was a yearning for self-expression, and there was also the
>sense of being able to make up an entire, new, system of dancing. (We have
>to know which generation we're talking about, though: Isadora, Denishawn,
>or Graham.) It's so hard, looking back over this horrible, bloody century,
>how wonderful it all seemed when Isadora suggested we all wear Greek robes
>and there wouldn't be any crime. (Maybe she was right.) Or in the 1930s,
>when the world COULD be reinvented for the betterment of mankind. Why not
a
>better dance?
R. Yes Greek robes are fine but longscarves and sports cars are definitely
out. Better is so subjective. Let's not go there.
>
>Q. Historically was it rooted in a collective
>> attempt to establish a doctrine, system or theory?
>
>A. I think for Graham and Louis Horst, it definitely was.
>
>Q. And perhaps "ism" should be avoided in reference to any form of
>> contemporary modern dance for the same reason?
>
>A. Don't quite understand this.
>R. I don't either.
>Q. Does not an artist like Mark
>> Morris break all traditions whether established modern or classical by
>> virtue of his uniqueness?
>
>A. Isn't the best working definition of modern dance that it IS individual
>expression and changes with each generation? The only rule is to
constantly
>reinvent?
>
>Q. When one breaks with the modern tradition does
>> that act then become modern and all else that preceded it become
>> ......classic?
>
>A. No. Difference between traditional, "a classic," and classicism.
>Classicism is something very specific, not a synonym for "ballet" or
>"old-fashioned," and exists in all eras. It's one of the prime instincts
of
>Western art, and one way of looking at Western art history is to say we're
>either trying to re-establish it or break away from it.
R. How about Classic Graham? Or Classic Horton. Isn't Joos's "The Green
Table" considered a classic. Classic modern dance is what is definitive of
an individual's work rather than the modern idea itself?........And
classicism is defined by the work's relationship to what came before rather
than who created it?......
>
>
>> Q. Is it modernistic when an individual breaks with tradition because it
is
>> simply new?
>
>A. Back to "Modernism" or modernistic. Or revolutionary. To me, this is
being
>revolutionary. I might say "kneejerk revolutionary." I think there's a
big
>difference between sitting down, as I like to imagine the Greats like
Graham
>and Humphrey and Taylor and Cunningham having done, and say, "But I don't
>want to do that. I want to do this. And I don't care if there's a rule
>against it." I think what Graham did that was so different, especially for
>a revolutionary, is that she wanted to become an institution.
>Revolutionaries are usually happy out there in Tent City. Not Martha. She
>wanted to do a system for the New World and she wanted to have a building
>named after her.
>R. You mean she wanted a legacy? I would say her legacy is her body of
work. I hope those who hold the charge of preserving it are faithful.
>Q. Or is it necessary for his or her ideas to be embraced by
>> another or others for legitimacy?
>
>A. Legitimacy. Do you mean critics and/or the audience saying, "Wow?" Or
>people instantly imitating them? Can't something be great art and exist
>outside the mainstream? There are examples of oddballs, and then there are
>the leaders (or, at least, the people to whom followers attach themselves.)
>Not modern dance by any means, but Ashton is an oddball. In some ways he's
>squarely within a tradition, in others he breaks it nine ways to Sunday.
He
>has no effective imitators. He's still a top dog.
>No. I mean is the work interesting enough for people to stop long enough
to ask themselves what it is they just saw. Whether because they like it or
it stirred some thought or emotion. I mean if it is not related to by
others on some level then I would say the artist has a problem, in that, if
he or she is the only one who thinks it is worthy of recognition
then.......What is to be expected?
>
>S. Classicism is such because it has been
>> embraced by many for a long time.
>
>R. I would argue with this very strenuously. Classicism is a very specific
>system and a very specific way of looking at art. It has been around a
long
>time (i.e., since Aristotle) but this statement makes it sound like a rock
>to which moss has been attached simply because of the passage of time.
>Classicism is a living breathing thing, a sort of taffy that can be
>stretched and pulled and twisted into a million different forms, yet
remains
>always itself. Kinda like the constitution (a product of a neoclassical
>era.)
>R. See I made the mistake of making a statement. Yes a system based on
very specific parameters as defined and accepted by many people throughout
history. Or for a long time. I won't venture into the constitution. That
is kind of like religion. It is best to remain in the world of art where we
can all get along.
>Q. When does a person's work become modern
>> or modernistic as opposed to just new?
>
>A. Doesn't every generation consider itself modern? There are passages in
>Bournonville's letters and diaries where he refers to "modern music" or
>being "modern," but he doesn't mean it in any of the senses we've been
>talking about. Perhaps contemporary? I.e., you can tell it is made today
>and not 50 years ago? This whole century has been self-consciously
"modern"
>in the same way the early 19th was self-consciously Romantic (pass me the
>smelling salts, my dear fellow), and the 18th was self-consciously
>neoclassical.
>R. Perhaps every generation considers itself modern but that doesn't
necssarily mean it is. Kids today see retro fashion as modern, but we all
know that bell bottoms are quite old fashioned. I wonder what the 21st
century will be. I mean it has all been done before. I think the
technologies will present the only true groundbreaking ideas of the next
century. As for me I am real happy to live in the age of Baryshnikov.
> Q. Is there a level of acceptance
>> necessary or is it simply modern by virtue of it's existence?
>
>A. Do you mean the difference between something that's really new and
wonderful
>and didn't exist before and everybody knows it within 30 seconds, or the
>stuff that's cutting edge, hip new now, today's wunderkind, standing
>classicism on its ear, breaking boundaries, extending traditions, hey look
>at me Ma I'm new? I'd say there's a difference!
>R. I guess.
>
>> That's right I used to drive my teachers crazy.
>
>Why? This is fun!
>Yes it is. Exhausting too!
MG
MichaelG
><< Sorry! My mistake. Who was BTW I know you are out there. >>
>
>
>Maybe you mean me?
>-- Manhattnik
Ah Yes! Manhattnik, you're the one! Do you know the answer to my trivia
question?
MG
MichaelG
Jeffrey wrote,
>It means that such theory as was there was internalized.
>
>It means they were too busy creating to have time for academic exercises.
>
>It means their carts were firmly behind their horses.
You know, they probably didn't give a damn about theory and they probably
never considered it until people started asking them a bunch of questions.
It is like John Lennon said to the guy who came to his door and asked him
what "Judy In the Sky with Diamonds" was all about and he replied, "It is
just a song".
Yes carts should always be before the horse and the horse should always be
hitched up facing away from the cart!
PEACE
MG
Nanatchka
Jeff, I don't know about literate--that chalice from the palace thing is Danny
Kaye's in the Court Jester. It is very funny no matter how many times you see
it.
Nanatchka
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
garri...@earthlink.net says...
> >It means their carts were firmly behind their horses.
>
>
> You know, they probably didn't give a damn about theory and they probably
> never considered it until people started asking them a bunch of questions.
> It is like John Lennon said to the guy who came to his door and asked him
> what "Judy In the Sky with Diamonds" was all about and he replied, "It is
> just a song".
I find theory valuable for telling me why what works does so and
occasionally for giving me guidance in fixing something that isn't quite
working, but. . . .
<Jeff climbs up on his soapbox here>
<Jeff picks up his megaphone>
<Jeff clears his throat>
I AM SICK TO DEATH OF WATCHING (and even sicker of lighting) TURGID
CHOREOGRAPHY THAT IS THEORETICALLY CORRECT BUT ARTISTICALLY INVALID!
Thank you.
AT
> <Jeff clears his throat>
>
> I AM SICK TO DEATH OF WATCHING (and even sicker of lighting) TURGID
> CHOREOGRAPHY THAT IS THEORETICALLY CORRECT BUT ARTISTICALLY INVALID
Not that I would EVER argue, but if I were the arguing sort, I might
possibly raise the point that art that is artistically invalid cannot be
theoretically correct. Unless one's theory, one's aim, is to produce
artistically invalid art, which should be condemned loudly by all concerned.
Dull straight lines, or dull counterpoint segments, are dull. Their
dullness is the overriding attribute.
Alexandra
miki casalino
> > Hmmmm Application of theory after the art is created....Does that
>indicate
> > the artists maybe didn't know what they were really doing...I mean since
> > they had no theoretical basis for their work.
>
They just did the right thing!
No intellectualizations necessary...It is called Talent.
miki
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
says...
> Not that I would EVER argue, but if I were the arguing sort, I might
> possibly raise the point that art that is artistically invalid cannot be
> theoretically correct
. . .And not that *I* would ever argue with you, even if you were one to
ever argue, but if you *were* to so argue, I might point out that you're
assuming that the theory is, in and of itself, valid. By "artistically
invalid", I refer to works that are dull, boring, uninspired and
uninspiring, and non-communicative.
At least that's my theory.
MichaelG
miki wrote:
>They just did the right thing!
>No intellectualizations necessary...It is called Talent.
>
>miki
I like that! I'm really not an intellectual. I just play one on the
internet. :-) Can you tell?
MG
Manhattnik
question? >>
Actually, no, but I'm dying to learn the answer.
NTL
the terms that we are trying to define in the first place, and how did they
gain currency? We are all trying to define individual items in a taxonomy
of forms which is quite irrelevant to the whole subject, and as such was
undoubtedly thought up and carried on by people whose only world was
theoretical aesthetics.
What if we (to be thoroughly modern, Millie) were to define new taxonomies
for dance styles or genres based on (take your pick)
1. How big the theatres were
2. How much the production cost/how much the dancers made
3. How big the companies were
etc etc.
I often think that whatever semiotic purpose a chair is supposed to serve in
some "modern" works, the main reason a chair as a dance accessory has become
so commonplace is because it's the only prop a struggling fringe company can
afford. I don't mean of course the sort of chair that you get in Spectre de
la Rose, which is altogether a much more expensive sort of ballet.
There you are - the beginnings of a genre taxonomy - "kitchen stool dance"
versus "floral armchair ballet". "Metal Ladder Contemporary" might be
another.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
jonatha...@dtn.ntl.com says...
> What if we (to be thoroughly modern, Millie) were to define new taxonomies
> for dance styles or genres based on (take your pick)
>
> 1. How big the theatres were
> 2. How much the production cost/how much the dancers made
> 3. How big the companies were
That's exactly what the commercial theatre in NYC does: Broadway/Off-
Broadway/Off-Off-Broadway.
MichaelG
Jeff wrote:
>I find theory valuable for telling me why what works does so and
>occasionally for giving me guidance in fixing something that isn't quite
>working, but. . . .
>
><Jeff climbs up on his soapbox here>
>
><Jeff picks up his megaphone>
>
><Jeff clears his throat>
>
>I AM SICK TO DEATH OF WATCHING (and even sicker of lighting) TURGID
>CHOREOGRAPHY THAT IS THEORETICALLY CORRECT BUT ARTISTICALLY INVALID!
>
>Thank you.
Artistically invalid....Artistically invalid....I don't know. That is a
difficult place for me to go. I would hesitate to ever dismiss something as
altogether invalid because I would be afraid that, it may be, I just don't
like it and can't be objective. I have seen stuff that I didn't get and
questioned the validity of it. I hate roaming around in grey area.
Perhaps you are jaded. When one is exposed to a lot of something it tends
to become mundane. There is only so much that can be presented on a 40ft X
40ft space regardless of how many various ways we decide to move bodies in
that space. Reality is so limiting, however our imaginations and desires
seem boundless.
Designers and technicians who love working in the theatre but are not
necessarily dance or opera or musical theatre lovers per se really must
suffer when mediocrity walks through the door. Or even if it is not
mediocre, even if it is good but it has been seen so many times that they
have to slap themselves to stay with it. I call it the Nutcracker syndrome.
Every year throughout this country and maybe all over the world that music
starts and dancers, designers, technicians all get that special holiday
feeling.....nausea. Hey, but people love it and it pays a lot of bills.
MG
MichaelG
Manhattnik wrote:
>Actually, no, but I'm dying to learn the answer.
The question was: The line in the movie was "is it modern?" what was the
movie and the choreographer's work it was directed towards.
The movie: Amadeus
The choreographer: Twyla Tharp
The line delivered by the prince, earl, duke, duke of earl or whatever the
character was while reviewing a new Mozart opera...The Marriage of Figaro, I
think. I thought it was a really funny inside joke.
MG
miki casalino
>
>
>I like that! I'm really not an intellectual. I just play one on the
>internet. :-) Can you tell?
>
>
>MG
no, I thought everyone on aab was an intellectual, except me!
I don't even try...the others are way too good.
miki
>
Miki Casalino
Casalino School of Creative Arts
Teamwork
Ballet is a labor of love
http://members.tripod.com/~Casalino/index.html
miki casalino
I will definitely not argue with either of you, but anything that is really
"theory" defies Creativity. The whole concept of being Creative is NOT to
follow a pattern or a theory. You might know and be informed of
anything...and the more one knows the better off one is in the creative
aspect of life. But, it would seem to me, that theory in and of itself would
cause the dance, choreography, whatever, to be dull. Or it would not be
art, but craft...which is different from art, or creativity. Craft is an
excellent thing to have.
As a teacher, I MUST use craft. I need to use it when choreographing for
children...there are just so many ways of putting "passe, echappe" together
each year. That is craft. Not art.
But, if one follows a theory, one is stuck in a form. If you are stuck in a
form, it could be dull.
So, Jeff, I wish you were here in SLC, so that you could light the ballets
that are being done with BW.
At this point, just finished seeing LA Sylphide.
The lighting was so bad you could hardly see anything on the sides of the
stage. Hum, well not really sides..more like 1//4 of all the sides of the
stage were not lit.
The center had a hot spot, and then all lights faded from there.
This is the second ballet that has been lit this way in the past year.
And it is horrid.
It is like the lighting plan was done in Theory...
Dull, uninspired, and following a set pattern.
Again, back to theory.
miki
> > Not that I would EVER argue, but if I were the arguing sort, I might
> > possibly raise the point that art that is artistically invalid cannot be
> > theoretically correct
>
>. . .And not that *I* would ever argue with you, even if you were one to
>ever argue, but if you *were* to so argue, I might point out that you're
>assuming that the theory is, in and of itself, valid. By "artistically
>invalid", I refer to works that are dull, boring, uninspired and
>uninspiring, and non-communicative.
>
>At least that's my theory.
>
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
garri...@earthlink.net says...
> Artistically invalid....Artistically invalid....I don't know. That is a
> difficult place for me to go. I would hesitate to ever dismiss something as
> altogether invalid because I would be afraid that, it may be, I just don't
> like it and can't be objective. I have seen stuff that I didn't get and
> questioned the validity of it. I hate roaming around in grey area.
OK. Try substituting "pretentiously dull, dull, dull" for "artistically
invalid.
Theory is great as long as it serves the art. When expression becomes
subservient to theory -- when theory exists for it's own sake -- as an
artist and as an audience member, I want to be in some other theater.
MichaelG
Miki wrote:
>no, I thought everyone on aab was an intellectual, except me!
>I don't even try...the others are way too good.
I agree they are good. I do not attempt to challenge anything. Only to
engage and learn from the responses.
MG
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
salz...@cloud9.net says...
> when theory exists for it's own sake
Not to mention <sigh> when an apostrophe exists for its own sake.
MichaelG
Jeff Wrote:
>OK. Try substituting "pretentiously dull, dull, dull" for "artistically
>invalid.
>
>Theory is great as long as it serves the art. When expression becomes
>subservient to theory -- when theory exists for it's own sake -- as an
>artist and as an audience member, I want to be in some other theater.
Very good. I understand and agree.
Ya'll have a good weekend! I'm outa here.
MG
AT
> Broadway/Off-Off-Broadway.
I think these distinctions today also include content and expected audience.
The Broadway audience may not be attracted to Off-Off, and vice versa.
This is exactly what the French theaters did in the late 18th and early 19th
century. The practice has commercial origins, not artistic ones. The Opera
had the only license in town for tragedy and serious drama, which had to
follow very strict, neoclassical rules for scansion, subject matter, etc.
Similar situations existed for ballet and opera. The audience was mostly
upper-class. Licenses were rather like trademarks and copyrights. They
protected the owner of the license from people using his idea (theater was a
new idea, at least, popular, secular theater was).
After the Revolution, the demand for theatrical performances was so great
that the Opera could not accommodate the number of people who wanted to see
it. So different theaters sprang up along the boulevards, called....the
boulevard theaters. They had to do something new as far as form went, so
they could get a specific license for a new genre.
There was opera-comique, where the recitative was spoken, not sung, as in
the Opera. (i.e., Carmen.) There was something that sounds awfully like
American musical comedy, but it couldn't be, of course, because everyone
knows that America invented this, and the stuffy French couldn't have
possibly thought it up 200 years ago. Except that they did. There was a
license granted for works where the dialogue was primarily spoken text which
carried the action, rather than linking the arias. Songs were interspersed.
They usually did not carry the action, but were used to express character,
emotion, etc.. Finally, there was vaudeville, which, in ballet, wove
orchestral versions of popular songs into the score. The audience would
"hear" the words in their head, and know what was happening on stage,
because the songs would carry the action. (Bournonville took this practice
from the boulevard theaters to Copenhagen; two of his ballets-vaudeville
have been in repertory until quite recently.)
The boulevard theaters would often do rip-off works of what was done on the
Opera, sometimes mocking them, always adapting them to popular taste. (Paul
et Virginie became Les Deux Creoles on the boulevards.)
Back at the opera house, in the 18th and 19th centuries (I don't know how
long it lasted), ballets were given very specific type names:
ballet-pantomine, lyric ballet, Romantic ballet, and, sometimes, just plain
"ballet." I've read that it was up to the choreographer to assign the
names, and I've read tha the Theater's censor did it. These names appeared
on the libretto, in the programs, and in the Theater's records. The
distinctions must have meant something to that audience at that time, as
well.
What to call things was never a mystery. It's amazed me how blind we have
become, groping around in the dark for words and concepts that have existed
for centuries. "classicism," "romanticism," even "modernism" are quite
specific terms whose meaning was understood by all likely to use them.
(Jacques Barzun has an interesting book, "Classicism, Romanticism and
Modernism" that might be useful. It's a very pro-Modernist work.)
I don't remember on which post it occurred, so I'm sorry for addressing this
so far away from the post which prompted it, but I think there's been a
confusion of "classical" with "a classic." There's Coke classic, classic
cars, classics comics, read three classics this semester. And then there's
classical: Beethoven, Mozart, the painter David, the dramatist Racine (all
right. He's really a neoclassic.) Graham's "Night Journey" has become a
classic. So has "Giselle." Neither of those works, however, are classical
in style (although "Giselle" is classical in technique.) And one could
argue that 'Night Journey" is classical in temperament, though not in form.
I should say I don't know this stuff because it's what I read for fun. My
thesis included a study of classicism and romanticism, so I spent quite a
bit of time trying to sort them out. There are dozens and dozens of books
on these topics. Sometimes, reading this board and my board, it seems that
some people think that these distinctions are absolutely absurd, and have
been made up by the writer five minutes ago (and obviously there are others
who don't). But they're not.
Alexandra
Jeffrey E. Salzberg <salz...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1256745c9...@news.cloud9.net...
> In article <7shqig$ork$1...@nclient3-gui.server.dtn.ntl.com>,
> jonatha...@dtn.ntl.com says...
>
> > What if we (to be thoroughly modern, Millie) were to define new
taxonomies
> > for dance styles or genres based on (take your pick)
> >
> > 1. How big the theatres were
> > 2. How much the production cost/how much the dancers made
> > 3. How big the companies were
>
> >
>
he...@albany.net
"AT" <n...@telebot.com> wrote:
> (Jacques Barzun has an interesting book, "Classicism, Romanticism and
> Modernism" that might be useful. It's a very pro-Modernist work.)
It's called Classic, Romantic, and Modern (1961). I don't know how
to characterize its tendency, but the first edition (1943) was called
Romanticism and the Modern Ego.
--
Leo Wong he...@albany.net
http://www.albany.net/~hello/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
john horne
">dances anymore they do "choreography"
Wasn't me. I cannot even remember which movie that is in: ?? Is it the
same one
where he does that modern dance? And remember:The chalice from the
palace has
the pill that is poison, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is
true.
Nanatchka"
I think it was White Christmas, where he danced with Vera
Lynn..............
johnh
http://www.dancartist.com
http://www.danceart.com/johnhorne/default.htm
Art as a Business:
http://www.danceart.com/artbiz/default.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"....Artist's realities are limited only by the flexibility of their
perspective, a burning affinity for the provocative and the clarity of
the dreamer within.
twnk...@ix.netcom.com
Unfortunately she was another dancer who suffered from eating disorders and
died prematurely. Twinkletoes
----------
> From: Bang2B <ban...@aol.com>
> To: ballet...@world.std.com
> Subject: Re: What is modern dance?
> Date: Sunday, September 26, 1999 12:22 PM
>
> X-41709-Poster: ban...@aol.com (Bang2B)
>
> >I think it was White Christmas, where he danced with Vera
> >Lynn..............
>
> It was White Christmas but he danced with Vera Ellen. An interesting
aside is
> that Vera Ellen's singing was dubbed by Anita Ellis, the great jazz
singer, and
> the late Larry Kert's sister.
> rough and tumbly yours,
> David
Manhattnik
Balanchine, who, I believe, was the first choreographer to insist on being
listed as such in his Hollywood credits? OR was it a crack aimed at people
after Balanchine who wanted the same title >>
Well, the number in White Christmas has a very Grahamish look to it.
Nanatchka
>dance in the historic sense. He broke with the "post modern" tradition
>prevalent in New York in the early eighties
And yet, I think of him as post-modern because he unitesdifferent
traditionsr--a kind of assimilation act. I probably don't know what
post-modernism is, David, which leads me to ask: Is the Bang Group postmodern?
Nanatchka
can...@webtv.net
Bang2B
>>prevalent in New York in the early eighties
>
>And yet, I think of him as post-modern because he unitesdifferent
>traditionsr--a kind of assimilation act. I probably don't know what
>post-modernism is, David, which leads me to ask: Is the Bang Group
>postmodern?
>Nanatchka
That brings us to the next point. Mark Morris is actually post modern
esthetically. Though he favors some of historic moderndance movement styles
(Humphrey by way of Hannah Kahn) and certainly likes baroque music he has
integrated them with folk derived dance and a sophisticated sense of rhythm
which you'll pardon me for calling african-american. The "post modern" work in
New York prevalent in the early eighties was really post moderndance
historically but not postmodern esthetically. Twyla Tharp is also post modern.
So, while the hubris lasts, is the Bang Group.
sincerely,
l'apres moderne d'un faun
David
p.s.
I'm beginning to feel like Merce dancing in that sweater with five arm holes
and no head hole.
Manhattnik
New York prevalent in the early eighties was really post moderndance
historically but not postmodern esthetically. Twyla Tharp is also post modern.
So, while the hubris lasts, is the Bang Group.
sincerely, >>
David, does that post make you the post Modern poster boy?
While I try to deconstruct what I just wrote, I'm going to sit on my posterior
and make some postum.
And try not to go postal.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
manha...@aol.comnoQspam says...
> David, does that post make you the post Modern poster boy?
>
> While I try to deconstruct what I just wrote, I'm going to sit on my posterior
> and make some postum.
>
> And try not to go postal.
. . .And here I am, reading this, on the Boston Post Road (but not for
long, as I prepare to move to Florida, posthaste).
--
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg
Steve Keeley
(Jeffrey E. Salzberg) writes:
>In article <19990928101047...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
>manha...@aol.comnoQspam says...
>
>> David, does that post make you the post Modern poster boy?
>>
>> While I try to deconstruct what I just wrote, I'm going to sit on my
>posterior
>> and make some postum.
>>
>> And try not to go postal.
>
>. . .And here I am, reading this, on the Boston Post Road (but not for
>long, as I prepare to move to Florida, posthaste).
This thread has turned into compost. Thanks to you guys, I'm now suffering
from Post traumatic stress.
_______________________________
Steve "or maybe an imposter" Keeley
SVKe...@aol.com
When responding by e-mail, please remove "xspam"
Kim_N...@tivoli.com
Steve "or maybe an imposter" Keeley posts:
> This thread has turned into compost. Thanks to you guys, I'm
> now suffering from Post traumatic stress.
Steve, remember that news groups are listening posts, and I'd
even postulate trading posts, tho' (nice use of an apostrophe!)
with no post horn handy when when the goalpost comes down, if you
know what I mean. Post hoc [and partially due to the fact that
it is post meridiem here in Austin, as I type near several post
oak], it is no surprise that at times things here seem composty.
People make expostulations through their very hypostomes.
August is good for that, almost a hypostasis of the news group.
Thank goodness we're over that, ex post facto, like we've taken on
an apostleship in search of something more "September".
In postlude, and most likely post obitum, as I'll have been
tragically tethered in a postaxial way to the whipping post,
with no post-obit bond in hand, and lampposted - OOPS - that's
supposed to be "lambasted" by pointe shoes and postiches, I'll
offer this post-structuralism: it would appear modern dance
cannot remain modern dance for posterity.
Post hastingly,
- kim
DANCEDOGGY
>Post hastingly,
I nominate Kim as Poster Girl for aab!
*******************************************************
*************When in doubt, Bourree out!***************
*******************************************************