Berna Kurt
ABSTRACT
Dance criticism searches
for an understanding of dance and creates a language for understanding dance.
It opens a dialogue between art and understanding. Giving feedback to the artists,
creating a discourse, creating and chronicling dance history, it also contributes
to the development of the dance field itself. In Turkish context, where
contemporary dance has a very short and complex history, we need dance
criticism to “exist” on the cultural and artistic agenda.
Introducing the
historical development and the contemporary practices of dance criticism, this
paper takes the case of a dance and performance workshop organized in Istanbul
and seeks for recommendations for better practices.
Keywords: Dance criticism, art criticism, choreography, collective
writing
Dans
Eleştirisi: Sanat ile Zihinsel Algının Diyaloğu
ÖZET
Dans eleştirisi,
dansı algılayabilmemizi sağlayacak bir dil inşa etme çabasıdır. Sanat ile zihinsel
algının diyaloğa girmesine katkıda bulunur. Sanatçılara geri dönüş yaparak,
söylem inşa ederek, dans tarihi yazımına katkı sağlayarak, dans alanının
gelişimine de katkıda bulunur. Çağdaş dansın Türkiye’deki kısa süreli ve
gelgitli tarihsel bağlamında, bu sanat türünün kültür-sanat gündeminde kendini
“var edebilmesi” için ihtiyaç duyduğu bir alandır.
Dans
eleştirisinin tarihsel arka planını ve günümüzdeki uygulamalarını tartışarak
başlayan bu çalışma, İstanbul’da yürütülen bir dans ve performans yazım
atölyesinden hareketle, uygulamada ortaya çıkan sorunlar ile alanı geliştirmeye
yönelik olası önerileri tartışmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Dans eleştirisi, sanat eleştirisi, koreografi,
kolektif yazım
…………………………………………………………
1. Dance Criticism in Theory and History
1.1. Why (Do We Need) Art Criticism?
Art criticism
gives rise to an elaborated aesthetic experience of artworks and contributes to
the development of a theoretical discourse on
arts. Sometimes pointing out to new artistic developments, it broadens art
followers’, the audiences’, participants of
artistic events’ perspectives. Building a ‘knowledge’ or theory by
making definitions, categorisations and judgements, it also implies its power
upon the artistic fields.
1.2. Why (Do We
Need) Dance Criticism?
“Criticism
in its ideal form would create discourse, translate the discourse created in
and by dance into “the public”, and open a continuous dialogue between art and
understanding. It would be less about taste and its hierarchies, and more about
viewing and contextualizing.” (Cramer, 2004.)
Having a
sophisticated historical and theoretical background on dance, the dance critics
or dance writers analyze the artworks from a broader perspective –i.e. evaluating
them in the context of the historical, choreographic or artistic
tradition, making connections and comparisons...
etc.
In a
methodological order; observing, describing, analyzing, interpreting and
evaluating a dance piece and sometimes adding more information about the
artists, the company, the relevant style, school or genre… etc, they provide a
detailed account to the reader. Broadening the reader’s viewing, experiencing
and evaluating possibilities; they contribute to the knowledge and discourse on
dance. Producing written documents, they also contribute to the dance
historiography and archiving.
1.3. Dance Writing in
Historical Context
Dance writing can be traced back to pre-Renaissance period,
but ‘dance criticism’ -in the form of a review published in journals or
newspapers, evaluating some elements of staged performances- began in 17th century.
In 18th and 19th centuries’
Western world, some dance writers -generally having no dancing experience and
also writing in other artistic fields- published their reviews.
After the 20th century, the dancers’
and choreographers’ accounts on dance have been proliferated and dance
criticism began to be a much more ‘professional’ work in terms of expertise and
financial benefit. Increased numbers of choreographer-critics published dance
reviews. Dancers, choreographers, producers, managers, dramaturgs,
critics, scholars and audiences / participants collaborated more than the past.
(Theodores, 1979).
For example, the dance critics / writers aren’t considered as the first
hand creators of dance pieces but recently some of them are also taking part in
the choreographic processes. Attending rehearsals, undertaking the role
of ‘outsider’s eye’ or ‘first spectator’,
commenting on the early phases of the work and
giving feedback to the artists, they contribute to the aesthetic development of
individual dance pieces. Some of them work in the preparatory phases of
a work and undertake the needed documentary research; meanwhile reflecting and
commenting on the orientation of the artistic work in progress. This summer, I
will do a similar (dramaturgical) work during a residiency in Bonn with Tümay
Kılınçel and Baly Nguyen. Our choreographic research project We’R’Dansöz” will be based on the ‘belly
dance’ and contemporary dance to be (re)constructed as a medium of
self-empowerment for women (http://www.theaterwrede.de/flausen/werdansoez/)
In recent historical context of inter-disciplinarity,
the dance critic’s / writer’s function becomes multiple and varied. Historical
and theoretical knowledge and -if possible- kinesthetical, physical or
technical experience are needed to make a critical reflection on dance.
As long as the ‘author’ is
a subject in question, considering the
artist’s intention and priorities rather than the writer’s / critic’s personal judgements takes precedence.
The dance writer /
critic is considered as a kind of mediator between the choreographer and its
follower / audience, the creator of a dialogue between art and understanding. If
the dance piece is designed to deconstruct such artist-audience relation, s /
he can also contribute to the creative process with his/her feedbacks. Such
sense of ‘creativity’ can also be applied in the very act of writing a dance
review. Producing a sophisticated as much as creative and accessible account is
always possible (Theodores, 1979).
2. (My) Dance Criticism in Practice
2.1. My Background as a “Critic” or “Dance Writer”
Since the mid
1990’s, I have been involved in various contexts as performer, choreographer, translator,
editor, dance researcher and instructor. In my studies, I combine various
disciplines like dance history, ethnochoreology, performance studies, political
theory and gender studies.
My first attempts
of dance writing began in 2006. My short dance reviews have been published in
newspapers, theatre journals, some performing art portals etc. Then I began to collect
and publish all my writings in a personal blog called “dansyazıları” (http://dansyazilari.blogspot.com.tr/)
in 2010.
The critical
point in my interest in dance criticism was the Summer of 2008: I have been
selected as the “emergent dance writer from Turkey” by Bimeras Cultural
Foundation. Therefore, I have been granted to participate in Critical Endeavour educational and
workshop programme for emerging dance and performance journalists, organized in
the framework of ImPulsTanz – Vienna International Dance Festival. This project was realized in the
frame of the multi-annual cooperation project Jardin d’Europe, funded by the Culture Programme of the European
Union.
During this three
weeks’ festival, under the mentorship of the German
dance critic Franz Anton Cramer, eleven dance writers from different
countries participated in workshops from four dance critics (Tiago Bartolomeu
Costa, Gérard Mayen, Gia Kourlas and Peter T’Jonck). We also saw choreographic
work programmed during ImPulsTanz and
acted as a jury for the Ö1 Prix Jardin
d’Europe award. (ImPulsTanz-Vienna International Dance Festival’s
e-archive, https://www.impulstanz.com/en/archive/2008/proscene/id1925/).
Thanks to that experience; I had the opportunity to “question, challenge and expand the boundaries of what constitutes the
‘choreographic’” (http://www.jardindeurope.eu/index.php?id=39)
And two years later, I also get involved as a co-coach in the same workshop’s
edition in my native country, in the framework of iDANS04 (Istanbul 4th International
Contemporary Dance & Performance Festival).
As such, getting
a much larger viewpoint on choreography and continuing to write on dance, I had
a different international opportunity in 2013: an invitation from the Adam
Mickiewicz Institute in Poland –organizing the 600th year of Turkish-Polish
diplomatic relationship celebrations’ cultural program. Related to their aim of
cultural cooperation and exchange
between professionals writing about art, I
made a four days’ study visit in Poland; participated in dance festivals in two
different cities: Varsaw Dance Days and International Dance Theatres Festival
in Lublin. I watched many dance performances and participated in the conference
entitled: “Image of the Polish Dance Throughout the World”. Finally I summed up
my impressions in a feature to be published in their culture.pl website, TEB Oyun
Turkish theatre journal and my personal blog.
I also get
participated in Orsolya Bálint’s
and Evren Erbatur’s workshops organized by DansYazım in 2016, the initiative
who invited me to do my first workshop on dance criticism that I will mention below
in detail.
2.2. My First Workshop on Dance Criticism
My first
professional experience as a mentor of a dance criticism workshop happened in
October 2016, during the second edition of the A Corner in the World performing arts festival in Istanbul.
The Dance and
Performance Writing Workshop within A Corner in the World Festival was a
part of a bigger project aiming at establishing a platform of dance writers
who, by their different backgrounds and experience, would start a fresh
discourse about contemporary dance in Istanbul. It was the second event organised within the Dans Yazım Project. (http://www.acornerintheworld.com/dance-writing-workshop/)
During
the festival, ten workshop participants were required to attend three
performances out of the five I had previously chosen. They were also required to attend panel
discusssions with the artists after the performances -enhancing closer
understanding and collaboration between critics and artists themselves. They
were expected to hand in at least one review.
Our
meetings were organized as three hours of intensive workshop throughout three days in two weeks and a feedback and discussion session at the end.
I firstly gave an introductory lecture about dance
research, then tried to summarize the Western theatrical dance history and the
Turkish dance scene. Last part of my theoretical lectures was about the different
approaches and styles of dance criticism. During the workshops, we made quick
personal writings and collective feedbacks. We also shared our impressions about
our pre-selected performances and made little group discussions. In the last
session, we gave feedback on each others’ reviews, I facilitated a collective
writing and we evaluated the workshop
itself to better organize similar ones in future.
A blog is created by the organisers
of the project where all the participant reviews have been published. The blog
was bilingual -Turkish and English. Some of those writings were based on very personal impressions and had
poetic languages; few others were more analytical. The reviews of Mine Söyler, Ömer Uysal, Lale Madenoğlu,
Elif Ekinci and Müge Olacak on the pieces of Nancy Naous ‘These Shoes Are Made
For Walking’; Ceren Oran’s ‘Heimat... Los!’, Gizem Aksu’s ‘Yu’ and Mokhallad
Rasem’s ‘Body Revolution’ were published as a result of the two week programme.
And the collective writing of Lale Madenoğlu, Elif Ekinci, Didem Gökay and Ömer
Uysal about the festival’s event “Walk around the Corner” showed a new approach
to art writing by emphasising collective creativity and production. This
last one was based on four participants’ personal sentences, adjectives,
definitions, impressions etc. organized by me and re-written by a volunteer
among them (Dans
Yazım - Festival Edition, p.7)
3. Concluding Remarks: Further Concerns for
Dance Criticism
I learned so
much from that experience as both dance writer and lecturer/researcher in
performance studies. During the
workshop, I tried to give much oral and written feedback to writers as a
mentor, I facilitated collective feedbacks and works in small groups. I think
that the mentors are there for experience sharing that’s why they mustn’intervene
in the wordings and writing styles of the writers. I just tried to make very
few and simple contributions to make the writings more accesible/easy-to-read
-like subtitling, changing the places of some paragraphs, opening and
simplifying some complex discussions… etc.
I also tried to remind the problem of
power relations when we write; the need to refrain from imposing of power upon
the artistic fields.
I think that getting the feedback of the
participants for better workshops in future is very important. At the last
meeting of our workshop, we discussed on the evaluation criteria and methods for the dance artistic pieces. We
also questioned the function of our writings –for the choreographers, writers,
performers, audience and festival organizators etc. Is it:
-Giving a feedback for artists?
-Opening a dialogue between art and understanding? (Cramer, 2013).
-Giving rise to an elaborated aesthetic experience of artworks?
-Creating a
discourse or translating the discourse created in and by dance into “the
public”/audience?
-Creating a language
for understanding dance and searching for an understanding of dance (which is
the purpose of dance criticism) (Theodores, 1979).
-Creating and
chronicling dance history… producing written documents, contributing to the
dance historiography and archiving/documentation in the long term? (Theodores, 1979).
When we prepare similar workshops, we need to practice
as much as possible, especially to overcome the fear of writing most of us
-especially the artists- have. We must open a space for much shorter, creative,
maybe videographic feedback styles for artists –like the one we defined as
“collective writing” in the workshop designed to overcome such fear of some
participants or the “quick scan” style that I learned from Orsolya Bálint in
her workshop.
In a country
where contemporary dance has a very short history with ups and downs, Cramer’s concern
below becomes much more meaningful:
“Our artistic genre –dance- had
been considered of little value compared to some established ones (painting in
the middle ages, theatre in the age of enlightenment, architecture in the late
19th century)”, we “need discourse in order to impose ourself on the cultural
agenda” (Cramer, 2003).
Therefore, “paying particular attention to facilitating
an informed yet accessible discourse and writing on contemporary dance and
performance practices” (Critical Endeavour 2010) is always an important
endeavour both for audience development and the development of the dance field
itself. We have to fight to “exist” in long term and I think that dance writing
is one of those attempts of such “existence” or “survival”.
REFERENCES:
Cramer, Franz Anton. (03.02.2003). “Dance
Criticism: Negotiating Knowledge, Taste and Power”, Sarma, http://sarma.be/docs/1037, [16.08.2013].
Cramer, Franz Anton. (16.11.2004). “Dance
Criticism in Berlin / A Critic’s Perspective: Franz Anton Cramer”, Sarma, http://sarma.be/docs/968, [16.08.2013].
Theodores, Diana. “On Critics and
Criticism of Dance”, New Directions on Dance, 1979. Sarma,
http://sarma.be/docs/707, [12.08.2013].
We’R’Dansöz” Project, Flausen Young Artist
in Residence web site, http://www.theaterwrede.de/flausen/werdansoez/
