There was also this discussion thread:

Programming a Show

<small>[ 08-11-2002, 05:41: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>

This is a quote from Stuart's first post which started this thread:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Ashley Page's new work for the Royal Ballet 'This House Will Burn' has caused a lot of discussion. It has been poorly received by many ROH attendees and by a majority of the critics. However, I thought it was great and a number of dance professionals with an interest in modern dance have also rated it highly, not least for the fact that it's a serious work with a great commissioned score, that succeeds in making the dancers look fabulous. Even some of his sternest critics have admitted that at least. At an early stage in his career Page, who had a successful career as a Principal and is now a Principal Character Dancer with the Royal, was influenced by what he saw in the modern dance world. Thus his works use a mix of ballet and modern steps, but with a modernist aesthetic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Is it obligatory for the choreographer to make the dancers "look fabulous"? <P>Does the choreographer have any obligations to the dancers at all?

It depends what the choreographer is after. Does Lloyd Newson (DV8) strive to make his dancers look fabulous? Is fabulous in the eye of the beholder? When you use human beings as your means for artistic expression they have to be on the same page as you or emotionally it can make for a bumpy ride and can effect the outcome of the final artistic product. No one likes to feel that they work they are involved in makes them look like crap. But if you believe in what you are creating, whether or not the goal is 'perceived beauty,' from an audience/critic perspective, then that's a different story.

Wow--interesting thread. Weird that I didn't check it out before. I DO consider myself a choreographer, although I am not choreographing nor performing as much as I once did...I usually only perform or do one choreographic project per year...I call it my "annual farewell performance""!!! Ha!!!Getting back to the topic at hand. Choreography which is "cutting edge"..hhmmm! I think ballet audiences might be a little more traditional in their expectations of choreography. I call it the "McDonalds" (as in fast food) approach...they want to know pretty much know what they're going to get ahead of time, and tend to not like surprises. Modern/contemporary audiences are a bit more adventure oriented and like surprises. I dont' mean to stereotype, and it varies from company to company, of course.But if you did a marketing survey, you might find something close to that, at least in the US. In fact, here in Seattle as far as modern goes, the weirder, less understandable, the better. Touching on what Priscilla said, it borders on the "self-indulgent" in my opinion. Of course there are good choreographers here, but again, I digress.<BR>Great choreographers have always been "ahead of their time". Often, not understood nor appreciated in their own lifetime. The same could be said for a Van Gogh or Emily Dickinson, but their work can be preservedon a page or in a museum. Dance is even harder, becasue performance cannot be preserved (0k, maybe with film or video, but it's not the same), so the ephemeral moment of performance is all we have that can be "appreciated", judged, reviewed, whatever.

Jack Anderson on choreographers who dare explore:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Choreographic Explorers of Unusual Landscapes<P>JACK ANDERSON, NY Times<P>CHOREOGRAPHERS love to make dances resemble journeys. It's easy to understand why. Both dances and journeys send people moving from one place to another, and the departures and arrivals can assume dramatic, emotional and spiritual significance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/12/arts/dance/12ANDE.html target=_blank>More</a>