Making Sense of Postmodern Dance
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Poetics and Perception: Making Sense of Postmodern Dance Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Veronica Dittman Stanich, B.F.A. Graduate Program in Dance Studies The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: M. Candace Feck, Advisor Karen Eliot Jan Nespor Deborah L. Smith-Shank Copyright by Veronica Dittman Stanich 2014 Abstract Postmodern dance demonstrates characteristics and choreographic conventions that differ radically from those of the commercial theatrical dance that pervades our culture. In this study, I address the question of how people—dancers and choreographers, but especially audience members—make sense of this sometimes arcane and inscrutable dance form. Centering on the April, 2012 performance of choreographer John Jasperse’s Canyon at the Wexner Center for the Arts in Columbus, Ohio, I use interviews with Jasperse and his dancers and with audience members as well as my observations of Canyon rehearsals and performances to begin to answer this question. While audience members make the performance meaningful for themselves in diverse ways—social, emotional, intellectual—I focus on the aesthetic sense they make of Canyon. That is, I examine the strategies and codes they employ to interpret the work, to determine its “aboutness.” I find that the codes that are most successful, that allow the viewer the most satisfaction and the least frustration, are, like its characteristics, unique to postmodern dance. For example, viewers who are not overly concerned with the choreographer’s intention and who employ a logic of metonymy rather than one of metaphor or narrative make sense of Canyon with relative ease.”Dance insiders”—those who are involved in the world of dance themselves and attend concert dance often—employ these strategies more fluently, but I find “dance outsiders” also calling on them in varying measures. In addition, I find that underlying all successful aesthetic meaning-making of ii Canyon is an ability to discern the formal elements of dance—its spatial configurations, actions, timing, relationships, qualities, and choreographic structures. The implications of this study resonate in concentric circles. They are important for the choreographers and presenters who bemoan the size of the audience for postmodern dance. Awareness of how a dance performance “works,” for whom it works, and by what means, affords a better understanding of how audience members connect to their product. Dance scholars and historians may benefit from the data and analysis in this study as a snapshot of a specific, situated instance of postmodern dance in our time while the study’s focus on the means of understanding will be of interest to scholars of visual culture and of semiotics of the theater. Outsiders to the world of dance may find that the study provides an entry point into a sometimes arcane form. Finally, a postmodern dance concert is temporal, visual, immediate, musical, kinesthetic, and essentially ambiguous—diverse modes of expression that are shifting, variously, into and out of the foreground of our culture. As such, this study has implications for how we process a spectrum of contemporary experiences. iii Dedication For my parents, Richard and Maria Dittman, who have never stopped supporting me through all sorts of endeavors. iv Acknowledgements I extend my heartfelt thanks to these individuals for their contributions to the process and product that is this dissertation. To John Jasperse, Lindsay Clark, Kennis Hawkins, Burr Johnson, and John Sorensen-Jolink—for your creativity, intelligence, and luscious dancing in Canyon, and your willingness to include me in your process. To my audience member interviewees—for your thoughtful responses to Canyon that really comprise the meat of this study. To Candace Feck—for innumerable instances of invaluable guidance, insight, and assistance. I truly can’t quantify your gifts to me. To my committee—for your abiding interest and good advice. Thanks especially to Karen Eliot, for all your encouragement as well as my real introduction to graduate studies, and for setting an example of how to be a dancing scholar. Thanks especially to Jan Nespor, for casually suggesting I should read some Bourdieu and introducing me to so many other powerful writers, and for always stringently requiring clear thought. Thanks especially to Deborah Smith-Shank, for exposing me to crucial ideas about how art means. To Michael J. Morris—for giving me game-changing insight into the value of dance description, as well as being such an excellent colleague. To Meghan Durham Wall and Karl Rogers, my peerless peers—for providing wonderful companionship along the way, and for reading and commenting on what I wrote. v To the vanguard: Ashley Thorndike, Hannah Kosstrin, and Jessica Zeller—for graciously answering my countless questions, and leading by example. To Susan Van Pelt Petry and the faculty in the Department of Dance, now and in the early 1990s—for your interest in and assistance with my various avenues of inquiry, as well as a really splendid education. To Christina Providence—for being the unlikely right person in the right place at the right time: a hospitable and generous test-prep tutor living in Bangkok just when I needed to take the GRE there. That encounter had far-reaching effects. To Charles R. Helm and Sarah Swinford at the Wexner Center—for facilitating my access to Canyon. To Ivy, who gave me a stickie note with “P.H.D.” printed on it in 2010 and told me now I could stop, and to Philip, who doesn’t remember a time I wasn’t in graduate school— for being such sweethearts. To Alex—for five years in Ohio, and all that it has entailed and implied. vi Vita 1993 ........................................................................ B.F.A. Dance, The Ohio State University 2010-2013 .............................................................. Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 2013 ........................................................................ Presidential Fellow, The Ohio State University Publications Dittman, Veronica. “A New York Dancer.” The Body Eclectic: Evolving Practices in Dance Training. Ed. Melanie Bales and Rebecca Nettl-Fiol. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2008. 22-27. Fields of Study Major Field: Dance Studies vii Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ ii Dedication .......................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ v Vita ..................................................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1 Epistemology ......................................................................................................................... 7 Defining “meaning” ...................................................................................................... 7 Approaches to aesthetic meaning of dance................................................................ 9 Identifying meaning-making in the interviews ........................................................ 12 Making meaning through talk .................................................................................... 15 Study Description ............................................................................................................... 19 Participants ................................................................................................................... 21 The Canyon dance-makers .................................................................................... 32 The dance-insider audience members ................................................................ 33 The dance-outsider audience members ............................................................. 33 Interviews and observations ....................................................................................... 35 Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 39 Review ........................................................................................................................... 44 Organization ................................................................................................................. 44 Chapter 2: Theoretical Premises .................................................................................................... 46 Making meaning: Two views ............................................................................................. 46 Postmodern dance as a restricted field ............................................................................ 51 Historical Context ............................................................................................................... 59 Postmodern dance and the establishment