Earlier in the semester we studied different choreographers' philosophies of dance. Their philosophy affects the way their dancers present, their choreography, and their piece as a whole. We respect that dancers have different philosophies and outlooks, yet we still critique dances. A new technique or style cannot develop without dancers making changes. How can a critic approach something in a style they have never experienced? Is it fair to "critique" a dance based off of a different philosophy than your own?
To (almost) quote Lynn from a previous class, "You sit next to Joe Schmo at a ballet, and he's never seen a ballet before. That doesn't mean his opinion about it matters less; it just means his opinion is less informed." Of course Joe is not a dance critic, but what is the definition of educated enough or informed enough for one to give a critique? Where do we draw the line between a philosophy and an opinion?
I think it is fair to question the actual critique not necessarily who is giving it. If a critic gains the experience of viewing dance performances and researching other critiques the critic may be more educated on the subject and create a certain philosophy. I would say the more enriched you are about the subject of dance the more informed you are. It does not mean that "Jo Schmo" has the lower hand, he does have an opinion. That opinion counts but it may not touch on the set philosophies that experienced critics understand. It is important to have the "Jo Schmos" because those viewers give fresh outlooks to what professional critics may not even realize or touch upon in a dance performance.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Just Dance. It is important to keep the audience, or the reader of the critique, in mind. Most people in the world are like "Joe Schmo" and have minimal dance education. They will find something that is put into terms that they know and can comprehend much more accessible than a critique full of technical terms and references to other dance pieces. Anybody's opinion is valuable at some level.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to TonyAtTheCopa, I feel that we need to value critiques by people without dance training. Most dance viewers do not have an extensive dance background and vocabulary to "properly" discuss dance. If we limit dance only to those who have intensely studied it we would soon find ourselves without an audience at all. I think that as dancers we often get stuck feeling that we are more qualified to critique because of our fancy vocabulary to describe movement. If we take all opinions into account we could most likely end up improving our dance by understanding how all different people view our movement.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to see what a critic who has a different dance philosophy would have to say. The viewers who go to see the dance piece will not necessarily have the same view, or same dance training, as the choreographer or dancers in the piece. A critique like this is actually helpful for the people who read it because it shows that people do not need a specific dance background to view a piece. I also think it would be interesting to see what a person like this would have to say about a piece. As dancers, it is hard to think about non-dancers seeing our work and discussing it, but wouldn't it be interesting to hear how someone like this would view our work?
ReplyDelete