|
That's an interesting question, Stuart. <P>I think you do need to justify nudity, in the same way you need to justify why you use any element in a piece. In good work there are usually some answers. <P>If you end up wondering why <I>were</I> those dancers nude and you can't come up with any other reason than as a gratuitous display you can probably assume that the choreographer just likes to see people nude. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's the possibilty that people in the audience will not be as taken as the choreographer is with dancers in the buff.<P>Nudity can be a strong statement when used metaphorically: the body as a new beginning, innocence, raw sexuality, etc. Nudity like any element becomes boring when it's overused, or seems to have no basis in the work. <P>For example, the last piece I saw by Jose Navas had a lot of nudity (just upper bodies mind you). I was really not very interested, it all seemed somewhat gratuitous and not at all scintillating or titilating; whatever Navas was trying to get at, I couldn't tell. Even my boyfriend (who does not mind looking at women's breasts whatsoever) thought it was over done and passe.<P>The Vandekeybus piece I saw recently has a naked man in it but his nakedness metaphorically seperates him from the rest of the cast; he is man at the basest level, raw emotions displayed for all to see, not even clothes protect him from destructive forces.<P>In the past five years or so in Vancouver, Canada, there's been a lot of nudity on stage. What may have been initially shocking has lost most of its punch. <P>Nudity has its place but if it doesn't add to a work then what's the point?
|