It has been said many times.
"oh, it's a man dance."
2 guys on stage, it's a man dance. Why, when the dance consists of all women (and 99% of dances made consist of all women), we do not say "Oh, it's a woman dance"?
Well, precisely because 99% of dances made consist of all women. Therefore a dance, by default, is a woman dance. So when a dance has all men or even a slight majority of men, it becomes a "man dance".
Heard this just the other day. In a group of what I thought were contemporary post whatever artists. But I guess not. They are still stuck on gender, on viewing a dance through the lens of gender. Dancers aren't bodies, creating shapes in space/time in relation to other, but men and women creating shapes in space/time. Have we not progressed beyond Martha Graham?
Or have the tools just changed but the story is still the same?
PS
Graham = Bausch = Stuart
Ohhhh! Cut to the quick! Isn't is Wigman=Bausch
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but I have never seen anything by Wigman.
ReplyDeleteUntil I have seen something by Wigman, and can go on more than knowing the lineage of Bausch from books and from what I hear people say, I will not be able to include Wigman in that equation.
ReplyDelete