The conflict arises in whether or not to describe the piece or present the audience with context for each piece. It is my stance that no, you should not. If there is a narrative, the piece should clearly represent that narrative. If not, then the audience should be free to take from the piece exactly what they find while viewing it. By explaining what the choreographer sees/feels/intends, you rob the audience of the chance to experience the work for themselves. This then turns the experience into a comparison between what they are seeing and what they have read.
My opinion differs (only slightly) in the performance of historically important repertoire. In this case, I think it is important to include information regarding why the piece is historic, the climate surrounding its creation, and why it is being performed now. Note that I did not say the piece itself should be explained, only facts about the piece. The same logic can be applied to pieces rooted in historic fact, but again only minor contextual fact and not interpretation should be provided.
The second form of this debate comes from collaboration. The scenario generally consists of a choreographer working with a musician, composer, set designer, actor, or another artistically inclined individual. Many of these individuals come from arts which focus on conveying a specific point to the observer. It may seem that if the audience does not 'get' exactly what was intended in the creation of the work, then the work has been a failure. This is not the mindset in most modern dance. There is room for interpretation and personal experience. In the event that the collaborator is invited to work with the choreographer, then the choreographer has the final say in just what goes into the program. It is an important discussion to have, but I again encourage the less-is-more technique.
On the other end is when a choreographer has been invited to work with another artist. And this is my other exception. Particularly when you (the choreographer) have been asked to create a work for an audience population that is unfamiliar with modern dance, it is prudent to include some form of program note.
Example: I was once asked to choreograph a piece for an organ concert. Beautiful music, in a beautiful hall, with a brilliant musician and fantastic dancers. Keep in mind however that the audience would be attending an organ concert, with some dance, and many have a history in viewing music performance. Some had never seen modern dance. The musician asked for programs notes and I sat and considered for a while just what to do. The route I chose was to explain the process the piece went through and the inspirations which guided my thoughts. This gave those unfamiliar with modern dance a context in which to view the piece but did not drive them to a tunnel visioned idea of what I thought about the piece. At least I hope that was the outcome.As usual, I would like to hear other thoughts on this topic. One should remember that the most important message of this topic, is that you should take into account every piece of information the audience receives as though it were choreography in the piece and form your decision on the total experience you would like your audience to encounter.
4 comments:
I think the same discussion can take place over the title of a piece. As an artist, I find that many visual artists (be they peers or mentors) default to the ever familiar "Untitled" title.
More often than not, I find it frustrating when an artist not only does not provide notes on the piece, but does not even provide a title indicating their thoughts. I'm not looking for "Sunset over an Aegean Sea" or "My take on the nature of humanity" or any profound statement, but I DO long for a glimpse. For instance, I once viewed a dance piece in college that spoke to me in many different ways on its own, but viewing its simple title "Windows" prompted me to look deeper into the piece, and to contemplate how this piece could encompass its title.
"Untitled" therefore strikes me as a lazy way out for many. It has a certain aura about it that puts the onus completely on the viewer, and at times, that bothers me.
With an exception! If it is done for a PURPOSE, "Untitled" can say more than any title ever could. The perfect example in my mind is the series of photographs taken by Cindy Sherman. In each photo, Sherman transforms herself into a character seemingly stolen from a black and white film. These photos tell so much, and the vagueness of "Untitled #32, #33..." greatly enhances the mystery of who this woman is from scene to scene.
So yes, I agree that program notes and titles are an extension of one's choreography, and that they require serious consideration. But I also believe too little can make the viewer doubt the intentions of the artist's work as well.
Good points all around. I would, however, add for consideration environment. I think that the visual arts can be harped on a bit in the titling category because there seems to be an impression of their work existing in a vacuum. That is a bit of an exaggeration and I do apologize if it offends. But it cannot be denied that at any given time, one may walk through a gallery and encounter multiple "Untitled" (or my favorite variation - "untitled") works. And as this is not my medium, I do not fully understand the process of putting a gallery together and there is some flexibility in that you have no control over another artist's Untitled piece being placed with yours. What you can control is giving your audience a point of reference, no matter how vague, as to how to view the work. Edward Hopper is a great example as so many of his works are very vague and the titles are simple yet somehow draw you into a new world. A few simple words creates the lens through which the piece should be viewed.
This idea of environment then strengthens the case for a series of photos which are all untitled. Then the not-titling says something in-and-of itself. I mentioned Sigur Ros's album which is titled (). Each track is called "Untitled 1", "Untitled 2", ... I'm not a particular fan of this choice but what it did was create an expectation of indecision and atmospheric sound; which the album readily delivers.
In actually choosing a title, it is good to not be too clever while not giving everything away. In many ways, this is the MOST important program note. The title, in my opinion, is where you explain your piece. And once again, set the lens through which your audience should view the piece. Don't be so clever as to confuse them. Be direct and simple. Often, this will pique curiosity and provide a framework without spoonfeeding the audience.
Ultimately, it comes down to purpose and choice once again.
Merli linked me with this awhile ago, when we were discussing program notes. In an effort to procrastinate grant-writing/budget coceptualizing... here are some thoughts!
I kind of get irritated when choreographers write mini-sagas about what the piece means and in general, give away a bit too much about their work. I think it shows that the choreographer doesn't believe enough in their work, doesn't think their piece can convey its subject or emotion or theme without help.
What I think is ok... I agree with much of the above in terms of titling. There is the rare exception where (variation of) 'Untitled' works, but so often people either miss the boat, or try WAY too hard with their titles. A title should be organic to the piece, it should be like another phrase in the work's movement vocabulary, but one that gives it the 'ohhhh' it needs. Maybe it sets just enough of the scene, something to cleanse the palate or prep the brain.
The only form of program note I think is semi-acceptable follows this idea... I sometimes find a quote in a program works. Not to explain, more to give off a feel or set the tone. More often than not, however, this turns incredibly cliche.
Only additional thing I appreciate in a program is a director's note that delves into process. I only like reading these, though, from choreographers or directors I respect, admire and follow, because otherwise I read them as "ego, ego, ego... I am great."
Phew!
I like this blog... Gave me some great stuff to think about!
I really like the quote idea. One of my favorite literary devices is the epigraph and this is the perfect use for it in dance. And it avoids the cliche recorded reading of a quote to begin a piece (again this can be phenomenally successful...when done absolutely perfectly).
As for the 'process style' program note, I get what you are saying. Particularly if it is a choreographer that you highly respect and choose to learn from. I personally still shy away from it in the program only because it could mean a lot of information. It could also mean a perfect way to engage the audience with environmental textual support that does not hinder their viewing of the piece. It is such a fine line that I would choose to steer clear in favor of a less-is-more attitude.
I believe Merli was the first person to bring it up to me, but I have a new fascination with the "for more information, visit www.genericdancecompany.com" program note. This I think would be a splendid way to express process oriented notes. It could be extraordinarily detailed, or not, whichever seems appropriate. From a marketing/choreographer viewpoint, it would also generate more traffic to their website and a way for the audience member to become a more consistent 'follower' of the company. This may just be a current fad in my mind, but I'll ride the wave for as long as it lasts.
Glad to have you with us at the Poor Dance Kim.
Post a Comment