About Sarma
Critics
Sarma-Taz
Forum
Partners
Links
Search
Deborah Jowitt
|
Intro Biography Bibliography Poetics Texts |
Intro
Deborah Jowitt came to dance criticism from a career as a performer and choreographer. Her first reviews appeared on a weekly program, 'The Critical People' on listener sponsored radio (WBAI) in New York. The Village Voice, for which she began writing a column in 1967, is an alternative "downtown" weekly (now free) in New York. From sometimes in the 1970s through 1994, she was allotted an entire page (1600 words) in the paper; others writers contributed to an additional half page. (The dance section as a a whole is now only one page.) She has also written scholarly essays for journals and books, as well as feature articles for the Voice and for daily newspapers, such as the New York Times.
Sarma will archive her 1977 collection, Dance Beat, as well as other reviews written prior to 1992. Her recent work (since August 1998) for The Village Voice is accessible here.
Biography
Deborah Jowitt began to dance professionally in 1953, to show her choreography in 1962, and to write a regular dance column for The Village Voice in 1967. Her articles on dance have appeared in numerous publications (see bibliography below). She was a founding member of the Dance Critics Association, serving at various times as its treasurer, newsletter editor, and co-chairman, and from 1973 to 1983 directed the Critics Conference, a three-week workshop at the American Dance Festival. In addition to lecturing and teaching workshops both in the United States and abroad, she is on the faculty of the Dance Department of New York University's Tisch School of the Arts. Her third book, Time and the Dancing Image, won the de la Torre Bueno Prize in 1989. She was honored by the American Dance Guild in 1991, received a 'Bessie' (a New York Dance and Performance Award) in 1985, an 'Ernie' from Dance/USA in 1998 for her contributions to dance criticism, and in 2001 an award from the Congress on Research in Dance (CORD) for her contributions to dance scholarship.
Top
Bibliography
Books
Essays in Books
Selected Articles in Journals, Newspapers, Proceedings, etc.
Other articles contributed to Dance Magazine, Dance Scope, Mademoiselle, The Miami Herald, The Detroit News, The Chicago Tribune, The San Francsico Chronicle. Vogue (Australia)
Top
Poetics
Recently, I re-read the preface that I wrote in 1985 for a collection of my reviews and profiles. At that time, I had been writing dance criticism regularly for seventeen years; now, in 2002, I've been contributing to the Village Voice in New York for almost thirty five years. I found, somewhat to my surprise, that I still believe most of the words I wrote back then, and I append the preface below.
However, I am startled to note that the word 'analysis' nowhere appears in that preface. I seem to have allowed 'description' to cover several aspects of criticism. Before I can describe anything on stage, or even choose what to describe, I have to figure out what the given dance is 'about.' What does it reveal about itself? What are the salient structure, spatial designs, and movements being used? Confronting a theatrical work, I have often had to imagine myself an anthropologist, trying to discern the rules and customs that govern behavior in this created 'society' (do all its members, for instance, have to be able to point to twelve o'clock when they raise their legs?).
I also see that I have nowhere mentioned 'context', although dealing with that appropriately is part of the critic's job. Too, the more contemporary dance has moved away from pure explorations of movement and form and into the area of dance theater, the more the critic has to deal with subject matter, background ideas, and related texts.
There's always some new facet of critical writing to consider. That keeps me interested and helps to balance the sad fact that print space for dance is shrinking. Now I have a little under 1200 words for my weekly article in the Village Voice, and the dance editor likes to have me cover at least three performances within that space. The effort to condense affects my style - not, I think, for the better.
From the Preface to The Dance in Mind (1985)
"Don't you ever get sick of going to dance?," people ask. Almost seventeen years of two to five nights a week, over eight hundred articles logged in.... Do I get sick of it? Of course. Well, no.
There are nights when I'd rather go to bed, have friends over, take in a movie. There are mornings when the words won't come, and there are sloughs of depression over the large amounts of mediocre dance I have to comment on. But when the dancing is wonderful or the ideas bright and fresh, or even, sometimes, when the performance is electrifyingly bad, I'd rather be watching dance and writing about it than doing anything else.
Over those seventeen years, I've done a lot of thinking and talking about criticism - how others practice it, the kind that I'm interested in writing. It all hinges on how the writer (and the editor and the public) views his/her role. I don't see myself as an arbiter of taste, a press agent for dance companies, a teacher to artists, or a consumer guide for audiences - even though I'm aware that what I write may be put to those uses. I may, on occasion, assume the historian's role, or the reporter's, but these aren't always appropriate.
So what do I think I'm doing? Some years ago, in Philadelphia, at a conference on Dance and Philosophy, Alan Kriegsman of the Washington Post articulated more lucidly than I ever had a concept of the critic's role that he and I share: he spoke of contributing to the 'hum', surrounding a work. We all acknowledge the ephemerality of dancing - an ephemerality that the advent of video has modified, but not conquered. Critical writing, along with the responses (public and private) to what is written, lobby conversations, interviews, dancers' tales, and so on cling to a dance performance, making it resonate in the memory, prolonging its life. To add to that 'hum' by stimulating thought, and perhaps dissent - that's what continues to interest me.
But my opinion alone isn't much of a contribution. Reading the works of even the best critics of the nineteenth century, and those of many of the twentieth century, I burn for more details. Did the sylphs dance in unison - an impersonal white veil drawn over the stage? Or did they always cluster in groups of three and four - taking on the semblance of spirit-girls at play?
I'd like my words to be a bridge to the work, a window opening on it. (By that I don't mean I wish to stand between the spectators and the work, only that I offer my perspective for people to compare with their own, if they're interested in doing that.) It's this goal that accounts for the amount of space I give to description. You can't report a dance as if it a were a fire, and the essence of a work may utterly vanish in an earnest listing of what body part did what. But there is a kind of descriptive writing that evokes the dance, without pretending to account for every minute of it. The writings on dance I most admire whether these are by my contemporaries or lions of the past, like Edwin Denby or H.T. Parker - conjure up vivid images of dancers and what they are doing on stage. Opinion is supported by examples or emerges through description. Some of my favorite pieces of dance writing are highly 'critical,' others are not, but none is without the strong flavor of an individual's vision and an individual's feelings.
Of all the kinds of criticism likely to harm dance, dull criticism tops the list.
My own approach to criticism, however, depends as much on my own taste and background as on any high-minded goals I may set for myself. For the first ten years of my writing career, I continued to perform regularly, and I have never quite given up choreography. My inside perspective on dance has been an asset at times, a liability at others; it is always a fact of life. It keeps me fresh and it keeps me humble. My respect for the labor that even the most self-deluding of choreographers, the most imperfect of dancers, must do has often (but not always) arrested my fingers at the brink of a witty put-down. It may be my background, too, that encourages me to try to consider a work on its own terms, rather than to refer to an absolute scale of values. Long ago, I decided that it was pointless to use heavy artillery on small targets...
Top