I received this in my email from Tere O'Connor, a copy of a letter to the editor that he sent to the New Yorker recently, but expects will never see the light of day. so, here it is. Enjoy. Nice read, good points.
Joan Acocella had better check her "sell by" date because her article entitled "MYSTERY THEATER/ downtown surrealists" in the Aug 8 & 15, 2005 issue has the distinct odor of irrelevance. Her musings on my work and on that of the others mentioned are so badly observed and so off track that I have to speak up. Through her lack of understanding and her inability to reach out and get information from artists, she joins a group of critics whom I will call "the literalists." These critics do not know how to read dances created outside the restricted confines of the narrative or musical frameworks from past centuries. What's more, they don't do the work of finding out what is actually going on in the minds of artists or what are the contexts in which these works are created. They have reduced dance criticism to an explanatory, superficial, retelling of events steering the documentation of contemporary dance into an impenetrable forest, dark and mistaken. When she called me to fact check, Joan intimated that there was really nothing going on downtown. I don't know what is more maddening- the dismissive, erroneous idea that nothing is happening in contemporary dance or her anachronistic insistence on an uptown/downtown dichotomy. Her bloated, oracular tone is classic. It is born out of a reluctance to say: "I don't know what this is."
In my 23 years of dance making, I have committed myself to examining choreographic thought and making it frontal in my work. I am attempting to detach from narrative and work with dance as a form that documents the sub-linguistic underpinnings of thought. I incorporate parenthetical structures, elliptical time, multi-layered reference, memory play and the dynamics of situation to create temporal renderings of human experience. By temporal I mean passing through time. Certainly, narrative scraps float through the works but it is the nature of the floating that interests me. I welcome the viewer's projection of his/her own stories on to the images in my work, the attempt to identify topical elements is crucial, yet it is the trajectory of their disappearance- their subsequent return or absence that creates the dance work. I am trying to look at a multitude of disparate elements in close proximity and find the specific music of their relativity. My references come from contemporary culture, pop culture, history, global events and personal history and obsession. I am not trying to create narrative sense out of these. For me dance is its own form of intelligence processing the information of the world in an inimitable way. It sheds light on multiplicity. It doesn't need a protagonist, doesn't search to resolve polarities and doesn't thrive on theme and variation. It isn't a Rorschach test to determine what story is hidden in its abstraction. It doesn't need to be translated or validated through preexisting ideologies. To penetrate the "mystery", Joan searches for an explanatory correlate in art history. She latches on to surrealism yet her attempt to draw a comparison is intellectually porous. The surrealists were rebelling and they were referring to art history, making statements against the status quo. That is not what I am doing. She only sees it this way because it is so far out of her limited world of dance that it looks like rebellion to her.
Joan and the other literalists are crippled by their love of ballet with its addiction to depicting, whether through mimetic platitudes or "abstractions" of themes. It is through this dusty filter that they view all dance. When dance works do not adhere to the clean structures of music or when there is no good/bad paradigm to use relative to virtuosic technical performances, the tone of the writing starts to become pompous and they start pulling out words like abstract, improv, downtown, idiosyncratic and my favorite, post-modern. For a historical moment so thin and mutable in definition it certainly is turning out to be a long period with ever expanding characteristics. Many artists and myself are not interested in creating pastiche. We have detached from dance history -NOT as a rebellion- but out of the natural realization that contemporary culture is changing constantly and that dance is an excellent form to reflect on its vastness and complexity. What is really interesting about contemporary artists working in dance is how hybrid they are.
Joan's quaint grouping of the four artists in this article is so haphazard it borders on insulting. Why don't we get our own articles? Is it because of the caste system that Joan and the New Yorker are so committed to? Or is it because we exist outside the limits of her understanding that we are ghettoized inside of a structure built with idiotic bricks.
Oh, look at the time!!
My melting clock says I must go.
Before I go, may I suggest that you get an additional writer for your magazine, one that isn't so perplexed by new ideas in dance . One who doesn't find cacophonous any music that exists outside of the Bach to Stravinsky continuum and who understands that the theatrical space being created by contemporary choreographers is crying out for someone who is interested in cultivating a new language to go with it.
So tighten Joan's corset, give her a candle, send her back into her beloved centuries and let her write endless, numbingly boring articles about how many turns Alexis Whoever did or how skinny she looks or how well Mark Morris followed the score this time.
The rest of us will swim, now, in this.