Matt Gough Blog [closed]: re: dance goes insane
Thursday, Sep 2 2004, 01:13
Although I agree with aspects of the recent article19 editorial 'dance goes insane' i'm not convinced the 'Logan's Run' solution will have the desired effect. Cutting funding from established artists will only advance 'new' dance so far, at some stage these 'new' artists become the entrenched monopoly. Funding generates funding and unless you can change the whole Arts Council mind set in the dancer makers, audience, private funders etc you risk having to cut of an artists funding just as they reach their creative peak because they haven't come up with their second 'trick'.
Yes, there needs to be an overhaul of the funding process and criteria but I don't advocate a pushing all that money towards graduate dancers and new choreographers. There should be provision for existing choreographers to develop their work but the monitoring and evaluation process should be more stringent. Nor does such, or any work have to be audience lead. it just has to be good, even great or outstanding.
The ability to create works that please is important but must be a part of the artists greater skill with which they communicate their work, rather their main strength. Without visionary, capable, artists who are dedicated to their work 'dance art' will never progress. Letting your imagination 'run wild' is all well and good for 'creative dance' but it takes more that to be an 'artist' (just goto Resolution). Those "wanting to dip their toe in the creative side of things" should be given funding alongside the established artists. indeed it should be part of the funding conditions for the 'old guard' that they mentor, and involve up and coming choreographers in their research (not just making the tea).
personally I would like to see the creation of a national dance company of about 30 dancers based on the old London Contemporary Dance Theatre. such a company would receive a significant amount of funding from the arts council and employ the dancers on a 4 year contract. Headed up by an artistic director who didn't choreograph for the company it we be a 'hot house' to develop dance, teaching and choreographic talent.
The large number of dancers would allow for the regular development of new work by national and international choreographers whilst providing regular exposure for 'up and coming' choreographers. the chance for dancers to develop their technique with the the top teachers and facilitate the dissemination of such teaching. splitting the company and running a staggered program would also allow for regular touring both in the UK and abroad to raise the profile of UK dance.
This National Dance Company would also need a a home and it should have enough studio and performance space to allow the National Youth Dance Company to have a permanent base, and run dance classes open to the wider public. dancer who wish to develop their training could also apply for funding to take company class over a six moth period and given the chance to work choreographers 'finding their feet'.
without going into this more the whole endeavour should be geared to wards developing the standard of 'dance art' as a whole in the UK and provide a mechanism where by the work can be shared on a wider basis and benefit the wider dance scene.
So what if dance is not appreciated by a wide audience, nor are most of the arts due to the wide range of entertainment available in the home. Pandering to the masses will just prolong the agony of 'poor work' whilst stifling that work which offers a real chance for change. the lack of importance placed on the arts, and poor quality of teaching the schools (especially dance) mean that interest is not kindled from an early age. works such as 'Remote Dancing' (Nic Sandiland and Rosemary Lee) show that high ideas and concepts (all movement is choreography) are accessible to the wider public, and that they are also willing to engage with such works, regardless of age or prior experience.
So what's wrong with teaching? creative dance and the decay of technique. Creative dance is not contemporary dance, nor does teach choreography or result in stimulating, seminal works. Creative dance gives the impression that contemporary dance is 'easy' and anyone can choreograph. that's not the case. The decay of contemporary technique mean there is teachers do their 'own thing' leading to the problems described in the editorial. learning technique not only gives you invaluable knowledge about how to use the body and arrange movement.
the school system particularly could benefit from teaching and assessing dance technique just as music studies do. just think of the range of contemporary techniques available:
and that's just to start with, but they all provide a syllabus and techniques that can be worked towards and drawn upon. Dance techniques provide something to rebel against or work from in order to find 'new' choreographic forms and techniques. If the only technique to rebel against is creative dance is it any wonder that overly cerebral works, with little content are being created. We have a rich contemporary dance heritage (including technique) why are we throwing it away? 'idiosyncratic' movement vocabulary dressed as technique limits the greater development of the form, we need new dance techniques and well as new choreographies(something Anne Went has been working on).
There should also be a return to teaching choreographic technique, and dance analysis as formal study, not to regulate the art but encourage more capable, knowledgeable, and artistically aware choreographers, dancers and audiences.
this has been to long, but three things
vote with your feet, don't go to dance you know will be bad and they will eventually get the idea.
Article19 open this up to discussion on the larger forum.. let people feed back and engage with them.
Consider the work you are doing.. what have you given your art form to ensure it's continued survival.
note:
Article19 is great at what is does, please don't see my joining the 'debate' as saying you are doing the wrong thing. my only concern with the editorial was that there was no 'direct' way to respond to that posting other than posting my reply here. the establishment does need overturning be we need to ensure that something better replaces it.
Filed by Article19 at 1:13 PM | 
Stumble It!