art that changes us
i recently read ken foster's, plenary speech for dance/usa on tour.
this line struck me particularly:
I’m thinking that the times demand of us a deeper exploration of our individual psyche and correspondingly of the social and human psyche that is the substance of the human condition. There is no time now for self- indulgence; for lovely movement and pretty dances that just make people happy. If they go away without a deeper understanding of themselves or the contemporary world, why are we bothering?
this articulates, one of my problems with mark morris, i think. seeing l'allegro on friday, i felt like i had a good evening. saw some great dance. but, really, i left unchanged. the two moments, that did have an affect, were, what i will describe as, the partner changing love circle and a moment when there were about four couples on stage just embracing.
two pieces that have had that sort of life changing affect on me were johannes wieland's, artificial, and tim rushton's, graffiti.
this line struck me particularly:
I’m thinking that the times demand of us a deeper exploration of our individual psyche and correspondingly of the social and human psyche that is the substance of the human condition. There is no time now for self- indulgence; for lovely movement and pretty dances that just make people happy. If they go away without a deeper understanding of themselves or the contemporary world, why are we bothering?
this articulates, one of my problems with mark morris, i think. seeing l'allegro on friday, i felt like i had a good evening. saw some great dance. but, really, i left unchanged. the two moments, that did have an affect, were, what i will describe as, the partner changing love circle and a moment when there were about four couples on stage just embracing.
two pieces that have had that sort of life changing affect on me were johannes wieland's, artificial, and tim rushton's, graffiti.
posted by maude at 1:30 PM
2 Comments:
"the times demand of us"? that's being a bit ego- and contemporary-centric, isn't it? are our times so dour that light works have no place? i agree that emptiness is mostly pointless, but it seems he grossly oversimplifies. there has always been worthwhile art that is more than just social commentary or "really deep thoughts" or self-expression.
certainly i think everybody has the right to make whatever kind of work they want. i'm just more interested, as a spectator, in seeing heavier work. there are plenty of audiences who want light and easily accessible. entertainment value of course has its place.
Post a Comment
<< Home