San Francisco Chronicle dance critic Allan Ulrich has written a scathing opinion of unorthodox choreography and dance theater that hits issues raised in this CriticalDance forum. For instance: "The attempt to expand the definition of the art has generated circus acts and terminally earnest gabfests uttered by mobile monologuists who pass themselves off as choreographers. 'Dance theater' too often is an artificial construct, a slogan in search of a style." Ulrich also says: "Did all those rope climbers who call themselves choreographers ever consider that fearing for an acrobat's life is not a legitimate artistic response on the part of the viewer?" <P>The article is at <A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/2000/04/23/STYLE6730.dtl" TARGET=_blank>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/2000/04/23/STYLE6730.dtl</A> <P>Any rebuttals?<BR>

Thanks for this Michael, but Azlan has put the same link in the 'Issues' Forum. I guess a case can be made for the discussion about this article being in either of these two Forums. However, as Azlan put his link in first, can I propose that we continue the discussion there:<P> <A HREF="http://www.criticaldance.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000043.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.criticaldance.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000043.html</A> <P><BR>To avoid confusion, I shall close this Topic. <p>[This message has been edited by Stuart Sweeney (edited April 29, 2000).]