In performance, the politics of identity is such a common stated theme as to be a default for artists who’d
prefer to let their work do the talking rather than writing the dreaded artist’s
statement. But is this acceding to cultural dynamics? Is it simply the easiest path, a one-size-fits-all panacea meant to try to shape the amorphous?
Last weekend, Danspace
Project showed 80s videos of dance excerpts by black choreographers, chosen by
Will Rawls as part of the Parallels platform, titled "Protagonists: Documents of Dance and Debate," at the appropriately alliterative Douglas Dunn loft. Shown were clips by Blondell
Cummings, Ishmael Houston-Jones (the platform’s curator), Ralph Lemon (all
three were present), plus a dialogue/demo between Steve Paxton and Bill T.
Jones.
None of dances came from
what Houston-Jones termed “the Ailey tradition,” a semi-codified blend of modern, jazz, and African traditions, with a theatrical bent. Nor do these artists describe themselves (at least firstly) as African-American choreographers. They simply happen to be African-American.
What came through
was how personally specific these excerpts were, which is one of the few common
denominators of post-Judson modern dance in New York. Essentially, the freedom
to pursue a personal theater, regardless of technique, which nonetheless is
continually at hand. It just doesn’t define these dances.
I’d never seen Cummings
perform, which I immediately regretted after seeing her slippery, darting, detailed
phrases accumulate like a dazzling mound of soap bubbles in Chicken Soup. Set
in a "kitchen," she danced with a cast iron pan, tapping into the role of women in the
family, as the family foundation, providing sustenance and comfort, and yet
also somehow ineluctably and gravely bound to duty.
Houston-Jones’ work included
his mother. He carried her onstage on his shoulder (a simple act that
encapsulated the poignancy of a mother/son relationship) and she recited a
monologue while painting eggs. His point was to try to ignore whatever she was
saying, creating an complex tension between the connect and the disconnect.
Ralph Lemon’s segment was
apparently one of the first choreographic efforts by him (and one he
hadn’t seen in 30 years). It seemed strange, purposefully opaque, gender vague
(he wore a skirt), but intriguing—a precursor to his later powerful mix of sheer
kinetic impulse and anthropology.
The Paxton/Jones segment
consisted of short solo performance clips, followed by a heated dialogue about aesthetics
and authenticity. The original talk from 1983 was provocative then, and still gives off a static charge years later. An example: when Jones does an arabesque,
what are the associations it brings that could be questioned as emotionally
authentic? Jones insisted that performing it elicited certain genuine emotions.
Clearly, just watching a few minutes didn’t allow time to absorb much, but apparently it
can (and should) be seen at the New York Library of Performing Arts.
No comments:
Post a Comment