So, how do you critically talk about a "masterpiece"? | Arts
INDY Week's arts blog

Archives | RSS | Follow on

Thursday, June 26, 2008

So, how do you critically talk about a "masterpiece"?

Posted by on Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:09 PM

click to enlarge unknown.jpg

It is an easy -- and a thoroughly useless -- thing to be intimidated into silence or critical complicity by a "masterpiece."

New audiences and critics may be mindful of the meanings an artwork has been given in the past. But if they're encouraged, by anyone, to stop there -- if someone convinces them that they have nothing new of value to say to a masterpiece, or no right to say it (without the appropriate advanced academic degrees) -- they are swindled of their birthright, which is this: to determine, for themselves, what meanings an artwork has to them, now.

Why is this a birthright? Meanings -- and aesthetics -- change in a culture, over time.

Let's consider the theater for a moment. In a space far less than the 72 years since the premiere of Martha Graham's Chronicle, a bombastic, declamatory aesthetic once considered the apex of live theater was replaced by something very different. What's now viewed as the artifice of the elocutionary movement was once valued as something else.

At some tipping point, a gesture on stage that once conveyed the height of drama is read by new audiences as communicating melodrama instead.

Where does the tipping point occur? The dance and theater historians don't decide. The audiences do, at every single performance. They did it last evening in Page Auditorium. They're doing it again, tonight.

Martha Graham's work has said much to many people over the years. But the all too avoidable question under the circumstances also happens to be the primary critical question:

" What does this work say to us, now ? "

Could we have identified Steps in the Streets' "clear political message" without Janet Eilber's pre-show explication ? ( Come to think of it, can we identify it even with it? ) Would we have known anything of what the work was "about" without those words?

What, if anything, does this suggest about the artwork's current ability to communicate on its own terms -- without someone having to speak for it?

Were there actually three couples -- or just three female leads -- in Diversions of Angels ? What characterizations differentiated the three women from one another, and just how deep did those characterizations go?

Now, apply the same questions to their male partners -- if, that is, we can actually remember them. Weren't they merely universal donors -- interchangeable ciphers? What, if anything, is suggested by the fact that none of the men's costumes were different -- and that the one non-couple male was dressed the same as the others?

What do the qualities of movement in these works communicate to us -- not 60 or 70 years ago, but now?

The floor is yours. Take the stand, and respond in comments. We have to moderate responses, due to spam, but all non-spam comments will be posted.

Tags: , , ,

Pin It


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in Arts

Twitter Activity


Thanks for the nice article and acknowledgement, Byron. I would like to put a gentle dedication out to my father, …

by RKlem on Common Ground Theatre Is Gone, But Some of Its Resources and Its Role Live on in Walltown Children's Theatre (Arts)

Most Recent Comments

Thanks for the nice article and acknowledgement, Byron. I would like to put a gentle dedication out to my father, …

by RKlem on Common Ground Theatre Is Gone, But Some of Its Resources and Its Role Live on in Walltown Children's Theatre (Arts)

I thought it was a great movie. The acting was believable, special effects were good, story was balanced and the …

by Cat Jackson on Movie Review: In King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Guy Ritchie Gets Medieval on Our Collective Asses (Arts)

Revitalization = Gentrification and a mentality that says the area needs to be made great again. I don't get how …

by John Curtis Smith on Op-Ed: Revitalization Without Gentrification: The Scrap Exchange in Durham’s Lakewood Neighborhood (Arts)

I haven't seen the movie, so I won't comment on the reading of the documentary. Just want to say that …

by Max Brzezinski on Full Frame: Dina Is Earning Acclaim for Its Portrait of Love and Autism. But Is It Illuminating or Exploitative? (Arts)

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation