I always look forward to reading the dance reviews in the NYTimes--Alistair Macauley, especially, is a great treat. Bless Macauley for helping to raise the public's awareness of how important CHOREOGRAPHY is in our enjoyment of dance performances. MORE POWER TO HIM!!! Today's review of the Paul Taylor Company was so interesting... pointing out the enigmatic nature of Paul as an artist-- and his excellent dancers too. Brilliant, skilled, full of contradictions! THe photo, too, spoke volumes.
Far too many dance reviews are just about the performers; not that dancers don't deserve notice and praise--of course they DO! But it can be depressing to go to see the Joffrey, for example -- a company chock full of brilliant dancers, an have to d sit through the first piece on the program. ( I think it was by Richard Sheldon?? ) This dance was so distressingly banal, in terms of choreographic value. Yes, the dancers looked good doing their "tricks" -- that's all well and good. But what was the message? If any? Or the mood? Also, to light dance from above is very unflatttering--dance should be lit from the side, to bring out the sculptural beauty! (Unless an overhead light is intended for a dramatic reason....?)
Unfortunately, ballet has a long tradition of not bothering to teach young people much if anything about the art of choreography ( or about stagecraft??). Apparently, any gift in that line should come from osmosis. A young dancer watches (or performs) a dance by a master choreographer--and is supposed to absorb a gift?? Fortunately, individuals like Christopher Wheeldon do come along-- and clearly have a great deal of talent.
Modern dance, on the contrary, recognizes that choreography is an art, like music composition, which takes years to master. I was lucky at Smith to have to take dance composition --and in recent years to be able to teach it. So much to learn, every day, from others and from oneself. I hope I have a chance to keep on learning....