Thank you for your input. I think you have raised a few more major issues.
The issue of respect is sooooo important, and that is something I feel is
lacking in American Dance Criticism ( I say "American" because I am not as
familiar with criticism from other countries ). Really, I am remarking (or
reacting as the case may be) on the critics of New YOrk City. Too often I
find them mean spirited, disrespectful and opinion laden. With the
exception of Deborah Jowitt, I don't feel there is a critic out there that
does justice to her or his position. The social construct of the critic in
relationship to the artist is problematic (although Elizabeth Zimmer does A
LOT to couteract this) and in too many cases, the editor chooses the
mainstream ballet story over the contemporary modern one. Mind you, I don't
mean to be disrespectful to the critics because I really do respect them.
They work for too little money. And most of them do good work often.
Deep down, I feel there is a better approach to reviewing lurking somewhere
in the vague and yes, technological future. We haven't yet found it over
here at Dance Online, but the exploration continues.
>In the end, I agree with what I think is the subtext of Andrea's post. I
>will say it in this way: speak honestly and passionately about the work of
>others, but do it with a sense of respect. No matter how great or small
>another artist's work may seem to you, if it is "serious" work (in the
>sense of Imma's post on the seriousness of intent by an art maker) then
>they deserve respect.
>>Oh, and 5.) DON'T USE AMERICAN DANCE CRITICISM AS A MODEL FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.
>Andrea, forgive me for being such a blockhead, but what exactly do you mean
>by this? I don't know what you mean by 'American Dance Criticism'. Please
>elaborate for the uninformed.
>Mark Coniglio, Artistic Co-Director | firstname.lastname@example.org
>Troika Ranch | http://www.art.net/~troika