Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1970 - 13

DANCE AND THE CRITICS
Marcia Segal
Freelance Dance Critic,'
New York Magazine,
Dance Magazine, etc., New York

t is dangerous for critics to mess
around with the future. For one thing,
crystal gazing takes up time that we
ought to use to describe what is going on
in the present, or to catch some useful, but
not too distorted, image out of the past. For
another thing, there is a vicious sort of
corruption implicit in any kind of prediction
that a critic makes, if he is important
enough for anybody to care what he thinks.
Suppose a powerful critic decides it would
be good for a certain dance company to revive a certain kind of ballet. Or suppose he
forecasts a new age of romanticism, or naturalism, or any other kind of ism. Because
they need the critic's support, dance companies might be tempted to produce those
works that will fulfill his prophecy. Thenthe
critic's praise will be full of warm selfcongratulation, also reading well for the
company that cooperated with him sonicely.
Or he may have been capricious enough to
have detected a new trend, to the bewilderment or rage of those who try to keep up
with his fads.
Fortunately, critics don't make dance.
They sit around and wait for the dancers to
make dance, and then they try to figure out
what the dancers have made. At least that's
the way I think it should be.
In the past five years we have had a tremendous su rge of big dance in this country. A large part of the foundation and
government money available to dance has
gone to support the operations of big ballet
companies, or to subsidize the performances
of a few highly professional modern dance
groups. In some cases it has gone to create
new ballet or modern companies outside of
New York. These companies now play in
big houses. Their activities are treated in
the press as major cultural events, and
more and more people are joining the audience.
Dance audience, editors are still assuring me, is supposedly a very special and
very small audience, but this simply isn't
true any more. The big dance companies
play the biggest theatres, and because of
the great volume of dance activity, it is
possible for thirty or forty thousand people
to see dance during a single weekend in
New York. That happened more than once
last year. Clearly this can't be the same
Opposite: Echo, choreographed by Alwyn
Nicholais, and presented for the Conference
at the Henry Street Playhouse.
(Photo by Richard Thompson.)

THEATER DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

specialized audience that we used to hobnob with at the 92nd street Y. Aside from
the young people, who have always supported dance, the most identifiable portion
of this expanded number is the subscription
audience. This group goes to see dance
the same way they go to symphony orchestras
and plays. They are uncritical, not terribly
informed on the craft or technique of dance,
and expect something pleasant, pretty, and
not too challenging. They are sophisticated
enough not to see any great distinction between modern dance, ballet, and enjoyable
theatre occasions.
I am glad to see dance accepted as an
important cultural resource, equal to music
and theatre. This acceptance has brought
with it some artistic compromise. A certain
scale of production with high expenses can
best be met by building a faithful new sellout audience. All this fosters artistic conservatism. This seems to be the only answer in a society that's subsidized everything except the arts. We have never had a
state ballet in this country as they have in
so many European countries. Considering
how much more creative American choreographers are than Eu ropean ones, we might
be foolish to try it. Some of our ballet and
modern dance companies have been so
staid under the tyranny of the audience that
bureaucratic money might be even more
stultifying.
The big companies do a number of
things very well. Best of all, they make it
possible to see good dance almost all year
round, at least in New York. They are
stable enough for the dancers to maintain
a high level of technical ability and develop
an ensemble style among themselves. The
repertory is large, giving dancers a chance
to work in different choreographic idioms.
Often these companies are linked tenuously with the past. They can revive old
works, and can keep the less fashionable
ones around longer. From the larger companies come schools and studios, not only
for dancers but future choreographers and
teachers; rebels as well as conservatives.
These companies can afford to do bigger
works, mount them more handsomely, and
show them to more peopl e. Although their
ideas are not the most up to date, they are
dependably professional. If they tend to be
establishmentarian in their artistic policies,
they can also afford to hire our best dancers.
The relatively new attempt to combine
the versatil ity and the spectacular technique
of ballet with the expressive possibilities of
modern is an interesting development. To
me dance is not improved by a mixed pedigree. A great many choreographers are
working with it, and one day someone might
appear with just the right proportions of
just the right kinds of training, and invent
a new dance form.
For most of the small companies, produc-

OCTOBER,1970

tion seems to be equally as important as
the dancing itself. They are doi ng extremely
skillful things with film, lights, projection,
and visual imagery; and using new fabrics
and processes, and stylish sets and costumes. They are often more beautiful to
watch than the bigger and more traditional
ballets. Most small companies are created
by individual choreographers, young ones
trying to get started on their own, or older
ones who want to keep their hands in creatively. A few represent attempts to get together workabl e units in some new, sensational pattern. For their one or twonight runs, the small companies sometimes
borrow guest artists from bigger ballet or
modern companies. Their work is lively, if
not always profound. The most creative work
in dance is often the least pol ished. It
usually occurs outside of the dance companies and often outside of theatres too.
It would not surprise me if the cost of production was a stronger reason for this than
the non-conformist nature of the artist.
There are young, experimental choreographers today in several areas. They are interested in new uses of space and new
spaces, especially big ones. A whole group,
which was recently described to me as
"the downtown school of dance," is working with non-dancers using everyday movement. I must have seen half a dozen concerts this season, using from twenty to
seventy-five performers of all degrees of
technical training, mixed and working together. People are still working with mixed
media, re-arranging other elements of theatrical presentation, and getting new results. People are still working on the audience and performer relationship, and coming up with everything from happenings to
group therapy.
Another whole group of people is improvising like mad, while others are making
up movement by using increasingly complicated dance devices. Some are thinking
of ways to arouse strong emotional audience
reaction, by imposing violent imagery of
some kind. I find many of these experimental people very interesting, and some of
their works quite beautiful. I really would
have to guess where any of it is going.
I am aware that in this quick general
review I have not pointed out a single
genius, hinted at incipient revolution anywhere, or named one overriding power in
the dance world. I don't think any of these
things exist right now. Probably the greatest
threat to dance at the moment is an economic one. If anybody falls into the gap
between inflationary costs and tightened
spending, it will be the artists, especially
of the dance companies that have begun to
know relative prosperity only recently. But
dance has always been close to financial
disaster, and its other life signs at the
moment seem to be reassuring and strong.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1970