Defending Modern Dance

I hate the crap that passes for collegiate journalism, even if it is Ivy League college journalism. Recently, The Dartmouth Independent published an inarticulate article slamming modern dance. Needless to day, my fellow modern dance company members and I, were slightly pissed. However, I collected my wits and sent in a response. Did they publish it? Of course not. And given that I sent it in months ago, I doubt they ever will. But for those of you who actually read my blog, you can enjoy it. Oh, snap. :)

DEFENDING MODERN DANCE: One Shitty Dancer Talks Back

Dear Editor:

As a member of the Dartmouth Dance Ensemble and a lifelong dancer, I feel the need to respond to Udit Banerjea's blatant attack on modern dance. In his article entitled "Dance Dance Revolution," Banerjea states that he considers himself a "lover of the arts." However, he is clearly not a lover of the art of language if the best word he can conjure up to describe modern dance is "shitty." From his tone, it is apparent that he believes no one would even want to disagree with his assessment. Yet his assumption that modern dance sucks is far from universal. In truth, I, along with many other hardworking dancers at Dartmouth College, disagree wholeheartedly.

Although he attempts to base his article on dance "history," it is quite clear from the outset that Banerjea has little more than a very basic understanding about the emergence of modern dance onto the performance arena. Rather than recognizing the mainstream tradition which is actually modern dance, he falls prey to the stereotype held by the general public and which is constantly perpetuated by the media: that modern dance is all about "being trees" or some such nonsense. Although it is true that the beginnings of what is now considered "modern" dance originated as "a rebellion against the rigidity of classical ballet," the true heart of the movement was the concept that dance could be used as a means of embodying emotions rather than just performing physical feats. In this pursuit, modern dance often aims to tell a story by using the body to convey the emotions behind an idea rather than a narrative tale, which is the format of most ballets. Although an abstract method of performance, the concept of using movement to represent emotion is now hardly revolutionary, and is, in fact, considered downright traditional. The more edgy, off the wall, no rules barred, "I am a tree" performances which originate from the Dadaist movement of the early 20th century are a form of "performance art" and are more a product of absurdist theatre than dance. Although often lumped together with modern dance by the media, such non-structured movement ("clawing the air like a cat," as Banerjea observes) has no place in the mainstream dance arena.

To understand true modern dance, one needs to look no farther than New York's Alvin Ailey Dance Theatre. One of the most famous modern dance companies in the world, Ailey certainly does not dabble in what Banerjea describes as "cat-like screeching." Rather, they have used dance to communicate and educate audiences all over the world with all sorts of emotionally gripping concepts, many of which deal with the story of the African American experience in the United States. Two years ago I had the honor of performing with Ailey II, the Dance Theatre's junior company, where we danced a piece inspired by choreographer Troy Powell's experience of seeing eagles in Alaska. Borrowing movement from the animals, he created a dance which embodied the feelings he had during that trip, using movement which allowed him to share those feelings with the audience. Although those watching probably didn't think to themselves, "I get it! It's about eagles!" that was not the point. The message Powell tried to convey was a sense of open space, awe, and wonder - all feelings that the audience could grab onto and plug their own individual experiences into. By doing so, witnessing modern dance is a much deeper and more personal experience than other art forms which dictate to the audience what to think.

This freedom of interpretation through empathy leads me to my other major issue with Banerjea's article: the accusation that modern dance is inaccessible. Banerjea criticized modern dance for being elitist, claiming that it is only enjoyable for an audience who is in the know, so to speak. He argued that "an art form is not at all successful if you have to study it extensively to appreciate it." First of all, this concept is completely false. As I've attempted to explain, "understanding" modern dance does not require any special knowledge or formula. Certainly, as a dancer, I have more of an appreciation for the physical difficulty of the movement I witness than the average spectator; however, that is no more elitist than a violinist noting the deft motions of a soloist's fingers while attending an evening at the orchestra. I certainly have no greater understanding of the motives behind the movement. However, I don'?t need to know. Rather, by just allowing myself to react to what is happening on stage, and allowing myself to experience the emotions for what they are, I've already understood. Also, isn't the concept of "I don't get it so it must be bad"? an excuse made about all forms of art by those who simply find it personally loathsome? I'm sure I could find a steady supply of people who would make the same claims about Shakespearean drama or Italian opera, but I'd be hard pressed to use those opinions as a basis to argue that Elizabethan theatre and classical music are unsuccessful art forms.

Naturally, modern dance isn't for everyone, but neither is opera or ballet. Art is a very personal thing, and it is understandable that some forms speak to some and not to others. However, as a true art lover, although I may not always "get it," I nevertheless have respect for the creative process. I don't always connect with a work of modern museum art, but the person standing next to me will. Who am I to judge which of us is a better connoisseur? Therefore, if Banerjea is going to criticize modern dance, he should at least have something substantial to say against the art rather than a personal lambasting the entire form. Even his weak idea that such a venture could not possibly be successful ("unless the modern dance movement evolves into something easier to appreciate, it will soon become an antiquity") has been disproven by the sheer fact that modern dance IS successful. It has been around for almost a century, and shows no more sign of dissolving into the ether than any other commercial dance form. Clearly, the only one with the problem here is Banerjea. In concluding, I invite him to attend this year's performance by the Dartmouth Dance Ensemble, Dartmouth's only modern dance group, and experience the real modern dance form. Perhaps if he had the opportunity to see the real work our group does, he could discuss actual issues rather than convoluted stereotypes.