Posted by Lifelong learner (71.192.73.142) on October 16, 2006 at 22:52:27:

In Reply to: Just for the record posted by Dancer on October 16, 2006 at 17:06:39:

Since Ramaa's statement so boldly came out in press on 10/13, I
have taken considerable time composing my own thoughts regarding this “review” - I am disappointed that a piece like this actually made it into press as a professional review, and that in its original form (because it has been edited and cleaned up since being replaced into the article section of the site – all names deleted), has been supported by seemingly professional master artists in the field.

I think having attended her past productions and experiencing firsthand the extent of her need to explicitly use stage performance for advocacy helps put her piece in perspective. This commentary by no means serves as a professional review (though it was definitely a STRONG commentary), nor do I feel she is accurate in her viewpoints surrounding what constitutes the rights and responsibilities of the artists and the audience. The mark of a good artist, as I have gathered from my learning, is to express the vast array of complex thought, emotion, and experience that is most often common to all of us, regardless of historical time or social circumstance. An artist will often depict in order to provoke awareness and perhaps challenge an audience member to entertain a new way of seeing a phenomena or issue, just to get the perspective out there for interpretation and contemplation. Simply staging pieces that indeed reflect various shades of human experience and reality can serve as a form of advocacy in and of itself, in that it provokes awareness in the audience member of real issues in the lives of real people. This is considered to be a noble (and very powerful) means of using art to make a difference. The channel for dialogue through Q and A was made possible to engage the audience in open discourse about the content matter that was intended to provoke a response– this seems much more respectful of the audience than having everyone join hands to “feel the peace” (which is exactly what made me squirm in my own seat at a past performance of this ‘reviewer’) or even lecturing them about what is considered morally virtuous in Indian culture. Let the art speak for itself, let the audience derive various shades of meaning and benefit from performance, and let the artist use the stage as a platform for expression. After engaging with my own friends who attended the performance, many questions surfaced – in the end, the performance served its purpose, both for the artist and for the audience member. I was very pleased that despite the intensity of the evening’s performance, my friends were able to connect with the material on a human level while appreciating the use of a highly stylized classical art form to relay it with dignity.

I agree with Ramaa that artists have a responsibility to be socially conscious and politically aware of how their work affects people – but I am still puzzled as to how that was not fostered in the performance Saturday night. If the artists in question did not connect with the audience, then there would be room for constructive critical review. If they connected with the audience, then is this not the point at which the audience is given responsibility to respond productively? Performance should engage, it should provoke, and if it does that much and is staged in a dignified manner (already a tall order), then I believe that is sufficient and serves a noble purpose.

I just wanted to put my thoughts out there – I so desperately searched all weekend long for some way of reaping constructive benefit from this review, but I failed. I would have appreciated constructive feedback from a master artist like Ramaa, and a bit less judgment from the associate editor, who in an attempt to foster honest discourse, also made some drastic, biased assumptions about the quality of a performance being impacted as a result of the ethnicity of the artist (i.e. Indo-American heritage) in her response. These types of comments do little to cultivate productive dialogue in any scholarly circle, and it should be no surprise to any reader if one takes personal offense to such a statement.

In conclusion, this commentary has left me really puzzled, disappointed, frustrated, and quite frankly – discouraged. Where are the standards to move the field forward in a professional manner vis a vis rigorous peer review and constructive dialogue, so that we can embark on a voyage of artistic growth in a dignified, collaborative, and fruitful manner?

   
   



Archived message. You cannot post a
reply.

All rights reserved.