in response to 'public demand', here is the link to Arlene Croce's 1995 article about 'victim art' and Bill T. Jones' performance titled 'Still/Here' : <BR> <A HREF="http://canuck.com/Esalon/dance/Croce.html" TARGET=_blank>http://canuck.com/Esalon/dance/Croce.html</A> <P>p.s. you might want to print this one, if you're planning to read it.....because it's long. there is also a dark background, so you might be best advised to print text only....

there are a few comments alluding to this piece in this thread:
http://forum.criticaldance.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000098

but i will not copy them over, since they were all made without a recent viewing of the actual article, and people may wish to comment differently now that the piece is before them.

the company referred to has a website here:
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Balcony/3252/

<font size = -2><center>(Edited by salzberg to fix link)</center></font>

<small>[ 08-11-2002, 15:39: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>

This all sounds like philosophical discussions we/I used to have in graduate school"Dance Philosphy and Criticism", regarding the role and perspective of choreographer and critic. What is the responsibility of the choreographer--present one point of view, multiple points of view...where does that leave the critic?? Now that I come to think of it, isn't the ballet "Giselle" for example, just another example of "vicitim art"? Could we feel anything but pity and pain when Giselle goes mad and dies...isn't that manipulating the audience just as much as Ms. Croce claims that Mr. Bill-T does in his AIDS piece? It's just that AIDS is a more political and timely disease!!<BR>

The "point" was a "lead-in" to my questions asked in the latter part of the posting....I was merely thinking out loud...isn't that partially the "point" of all this...a discussion and sharing of ideas?