If I was directing a play I would be certain that there was a structure in place to allow the performer to be spontaneous; you know, the wiggle room! The most mesmerizing stage performance experiences to me were the moments when the actors went on a tangent off script. It seemed as if the connection to the audience changed at that moment in time where the actor took the liberty to explore and felt strongly about his or her action. I have seen this manifestation within talented actors, the ones who feel comfortable in a persona, in make believe. One actor that comes to mind is Stephen Dillane who played all the characters of Macbeth in a production which I worked on as a lighting designer. I have seen this show many times but for some reason there was a moment in which I knew deep inside that the action wasn’t rehearsed. The liveness of this show was extreme not only because Mr. Dillane is talented but his understanding of the play was unbelievable. He was living in the moment, in his character and in the environment created by various people. It had a spontaneous energy and I think that’s what live arts is all about. Live arts should have a structure to allow this, to let it breathe. Improvisation is usually the act of making something up as you go along. In this example, I would argue that Mr Dillane improvised to some extent. He was fully aware as he went along but at the same time, he had a structure. Rehearsals were responsible for creating the structure needed in order to have those moments, which didn’t feel like improvisation but more like insight. This is what live arts is all about, food for the mind.
Recycled Space
A delirium on light art, light in performing art, light design, hacks and everything else in between, but mostly light related.
Tag Archives: choreographer
Dreaming About Dance
I had a dream yesterday that I was teaching choreography. I would like to point out that I never took any choreography nor composition class or actually any dance class at all. The closest I have been is as a theatre designer, I have been around many choreographer and obviously, my wife is a choreographer. I have to be honest, dreaming about teaching choreography is something that I don’t usually do. Nor am I the one dreaming about my designs or projects that I am working on. However, I would like to try composing a dance piece in the near future. I enjoy movement from the overall visual aspect or in other word, the stage picture. What I see on stage is what I get, WISOSIWIG, a WYSIWYG alternative. 
To me, dance or any art form is about a conversation that one has with an audience. I think it says a lot about the art form. Any good conversation involve different aspects and here are some taken from a post by Marcus Vorwaller at Best Tool For the Job. I find his points insightful.
Don’t be selfish Prepare for good conversation. Read widely. Don’t manipulate, or in other words, be honest and up-front. Reciprocate. Avoid gossip and complaining. Don’t be afraid to differ. Know and use your sense of humor in moderation.
I would strongly encourage people to think about those points while creating a dance piece and see if they make a parallel to the act of seeing a dance show and what those entails. I have my own view which I will put out there in a next post. I think it’s fair to say that I like dance with substance. Bring on the sauce please!
Boston Dance Crictics
I have always been someone that was interested in other people thoughts, regardless of what they have to say. Sometimes I can even disregard how it is being said. Everyone is different. Uniqueness and individuality is something that should be celebrated not condemned. I’ve read an article in The Boston Herald posted on Dec 10, 2005. I wanted to share my thoughts and let the blogosphere know about my frenzy energy over dance criticism.
To me there are two different methods to review dance. The first one, which is the one that I enjoy the most and what I think is the most enlightening. A reviewer that provides insight into a piece, highlights moments and that illuminates a page with a passionate writing. Im my world, there is no such thing as good or bad critique when it’s well done and insightful. On the other hand, there are critics similar to Bill Marx described in an article on January 3, 2002 I quote; “Truth is, reviewers are easily rattled by self-hatred, a sense of worthlessness heightened by a primal curse… Some go so far as to trade in outsiderdom for the more glamorous and ego-satisfaying chance to play mover and shaker, show biz insider, and big-time artist. There are even critics who keep big foots in both camps: criticism and boosterism.�
Ten’s the limit is a show about upcoming choreographers, work in progress. It’s raw. The most recent performance was reviewed by Theodore Bale from The Boston Herald. I can tell when someone dismisses work based on personal taste. I would argue that most people who reads the arts section in the Herald would know if Mr. Bale doesn’t enjoy one piece/dance/choreographer. I think he just falls back to what he knows, as Bill Marx says in his article, an insider, a big-time artist. How can one critique modern dance? How can you criticize the essence? How can someone review pieces that’s out of their realm and taste? Dimissing dance pieces feels like giving up on the act of performing.
Theodore Bale starts a sentence with “The flops were…�. Drum roll, Hollywood, here I come. He finished the sentence with “… both belong at a dance school recital.� I actually have been to a school recital, well, to a school production, at the California Institute of the Arts to see and enjoy works of upcoming choreographers. If that’s what he’s referring to, ill go anytime. I doubt that’s the case he was trying to point out. I could point out many different schools which have amazing recitals but that’s beside the point. He probably has never even choreographed. I am not a ballet dancer and I am not a member of the Dance Critic Association.
It seems to me that some reviewers needs to rethink there moto.