Should dance be purely entertainment - a refuge from world events and politics?
- Thread starter Pacion
- Start date
Pacion said:
(Link added in quote)
There are innumerable worthy causes in the world. Sometimes artists promote those causes, if they choose to. Why "should" they be any more obligated to do so than any other individual or group? I do not see the critic dedicating her journalistic effort to Katrina victims, London bombing victims, or anything else except self-interest.
IMO this is just a critic writing a week after the hurricane and trying to be both topical and inflammatory.
mamboqueen
Well-Known Member
Maybe they decided to acknowledge the victims/disaster in another, less public, way. I agree with Jon. I don't think it's imcumbent on people/groups to make a statement all the time. After awhile, they start to lack meaning, imo.
alemana
New Member
The AA company is one of the most relevant, intentionally politicized yet artistically superior companies in the *world* (and that's not a facile observation based on the fact that it's a company founded by a person of color and dominated by POC.) Anybody who knows anything about them knows that to be true. The English critic clearly needed to fill some space.
Laura
Well-Known Member
I agree with Jon and Alemana. This isn't politics, it is art. And sometimes even when the art is making a political statement (as in Alvin Ailey's existance and success), it doesn't mean that every single thing they do has to be political.
If every single thing they did had to be political, then they would be politicians at heart and not artists. There's a bit of a difference, and that bit is part of where artistic freedom exists.
If every single thing they did had to be political, then they would be politicians at heart and not artists. There's a bit of a difference, and that bit is part of where artistic freedom exists.
diputs
New Member
Judith Jamison has done a very good job trying to keep the company as artistic as possible with out becoming too commercial.
One of her current dancers is from New Orleans, so I am sure the company has acknowledged Katrina in some way.
You cannot please everyone. AAADT is a great experience on the inside and from the outside.
One of her current dancers is from New Orleans, so I am sure the company has acknowledged Katrina in some way.
You cannot please everyone. AAADT is a great experience on the inside and from the outside.
cornutt
Forum Master
It's pretty damn presumptious of a critic to dictate to an artist who they should or should not dedicate their performances to.
And I have developed an intense dislike over the years of artists who mix politics with art. First of all, few of them do it well. Second, I'm tired of being lectured at by people who presume that they hold moral superiority over me just because of who they are. Third, one of the fundemental tenants of Marxism and Communism is that art cannot be allowed to exist unless it specifically advances the goals of the Party. Thus, the only artists who should be allowed to work, in their opinion, are those who are willing to become propogandists (and for a particularly virulent philosophy at that). My observation is that a lot of today's artists seem have been either trapped by this belief, or worse yet, voluntarily bought into it -- despite the fact that the specific goal of this philosophy is the subversion of art itself. If I go to one more art exhibit and see signs next to all of the art works that tell me what opinion I'm supposed to have of the art based on the artist's race and gender and/or what the artist presumes my race and gender are, I'm going to rip somebody a new one.
And I have developed an intense dislike over the years of artists who mix politics with art. First of all, few of them do it well. Second, I'm tired of being lectured at by people who presume that they hold moral superiority over me just because of who they are. Third, one of the fundemental tenants of Marxism and Communism is that art cannot be allowed to exist unless it specifically advances the goals of the Party. Thus, the only artists who should be allowed to work, in their opinion, are those who are willing to become propogandists (and for a particularly virulent philosophy at that). My observation is that a lot of today's artists seem have been either trapped by this belief, or worse yet, voluntarily bought into it -- despite the fact that the specific goal of this philosophy is the subversion of art itself. If I go to one more art exhibit and see signs next to all of the art works that tell me what opinion I'm supposed to have of the art based on the artist's race and gender and/or what the artist presumes my race and gender are, I'm going to rip somebody a new one.
alemana
New Member
almost all art is political, even in the sense that absence of political content is itself a political statement (anyone who has lived in a communist or post-communist country, as I have, understands this.) i don't have an issue with that either way, nor do i think it relevant what the "Party" says about art (since the "Party" has no sway in the US either way, it's a little McCarthyist to worry about it.) but let's not go there.
the problem in this case is just the critic's lack of something substantive to say, so he casts around for a facile statement about Katrina and New Orleans. especially an overseas critic who does not have a clue how saturated the US media is and has been with Katrina Stuff. yawn.
the problem in this case is just the critic's lack of something substantive to say, so he casts around for a facile statement about Katrina and New Orleans. especially an overseas critic who does not have a clue how saturated the US media is and has been with Katrina Stuff. yawn.
Pacion
New Member
cornutt said:
Some good stuff, but I have to select Cornutt's as my favourite
It should be by choice rather than doing what you think "society" expects you to do. I do my bit for charity, as discreetly as I can ie. I don't tell all and sundry what exactly it is I am doing and if someone is doing a fundraising/sponsorship event, I do so with as little fuss/fireworks as possible, to the point where I have been accused of not contributing, so discreet did I manage it :lol:As MamboQueen suggested, perhaps Alvin Ailey Dance Company did make a donation (in whatever form), in a non public way.
For me though, the news here has also been full of Katrina and Florida, Pakistain and, and, and. It has been obliquely mentioned in the press about "charity fatigue" which for this year, started with the Tsunami and will no doubt continue for what remains of 2005.
I need a "refuge", somewhere I can go and forget about my life stresses for a few hours and to be grateful for the life I have. If I go to the theatre or to the cinema or whereever, and at some point an annoucement is made "in memory of, in recognition of" or, "boxes will be passed around if you wish to make a donation", that would break my relaxation, my refuge. The end result? I would be forced to stay at home, switch off the television, radio and computer and hide underneath my bed, just to "get away from it all".
Twilight_Elena
Well-Known Member
Totally agree with Pacion. I'm sure that artists care for what happens to the rest of the world, but choose to help/support/donate in a more quiet way. Dancing is a refuge. And a shelter. And if I want to help Katrina victims, I will. But not while I'm dancing/watching other people dance. That's my time.
Twilight Elena
Twilight Elena
