Publisher’s Note: The publisher has had no role in editing this column, which is published as the writer submitted it with the intention of publication in BEACONS.
By Alana Penny
Sarah Kaufman has a deep love and understanding of dance. This is how she is able to rip it to shreds. She knows the power the art form possesses and how it impacts viewers, so she knows when it is failing its audiences and dancers. Kaufman does a lot of event coverage, but her dance-related coverage doesn’t stop there. She also covered many other aspects of dance, like Fox’s game show “So You Think You Can Dance,” the impact of Michael Jackson’s moonwalk and a viral wedding video in which the entire ceremony was choreographed.
She has been covering dance for The Washington Post for 26 years, so she knows the industry; what it does right and where it lacks. This won her the 2010 Pulitzer Prize in Criticism for distinguished criticism in print, online or both, and $10,000. A well deserved win for her incredibly well thought out and easy to understand pieces about how the art of dance communicates stories and feelings to audiences that appeal to us on the most human level.
Although she uses lots of technical terms, like ballet steps a layperson wouldn’t understand, but in context so that readers don’t get lost and even learn what they mean.
In “Burned by Balanchine: Ballet mist make room onstage for more than one genius” Kaufman argues that one choreographer, George Balanchine, is responsible for the state of ballet in America today: no longer about storytelling and more about “fast, skinny, emotionally guarded dancers.” She gives readers a much needed history lesson, proving her credibility as a dance critic right away. You know she has a stockpile of knowledge to base her ideas off and isn’t just spitballing. She knows her stuff.
Kaufman explains how ballet came to be, how it was always centered on personalities, it told the stories of ranch hands, servicemen, outlaws and murderers. But now, Balanchine’s ballets are being performed by the largest companies in the world, he is well respected and other choreographers base their own style off his. This, according to Kaufman, is exactly the problem. Kaufman uses statistics like “of more than 400 ballets Balanchine created in his 79 years, roughly 75 are still actively performed,” to show she really knows and understands his work. She gives him credit where it is due, explaining she understands why his work is popular and has made such an impact. She goes deeper, clarifying the problem isn’t him creating a style, its how it became such a norm and stopped other choreographers from stretching their creativity in an attempt to be like a “great.” “Some of the post- Balanchinr work has been interesting, much of it has not. But ballet has not become richer.” She wraps up her articles like all good op-eds do: with a call to action. She introduces a big, abstract solution, “what's needed is the antidote to all curses: ballet has to get its humanity back,” and then offers more specific realistic steps in the right direction.
“He took a Great Leap: Merce Cunningham” takes a unique angle, combining an obituary with an op-ed. Kaufman mourns the death of “a gentle man, a great roaring lion of a choreographer,” using his life work to explain a larger issue in the dance community: most choreographers’ art dies with them.
“All dance is, uniquely and sadly, an ephemeral art form,” Kaufman writes. ”It lacks a good system of self-preservation other than continuous performance, with one generation of dancers teaching the steps to the next.”
She brings in Janet Eilber, the artistic director of the Martha Graham Dance Company, as a source. She reinforces that this is an issue many in the dance community find troubling. Kaufman brings in sources in most of her articles, sometimes enforcing her ideas, sometimes refuting them, allowing her to present another facet to her argument.
Rather than presenting a new idea on the topic, in “With a light touch, Pilobolus casts a long shadow” Kaufman takes an opinion she has heard from other people and gives her take. The troupe of acrobatic dancers known for creating shapes with their bodies that together look like an elephant or sea creatures have been called sellouts for being in television advertisements. To this Kaufman says, “celebrities are praised for smart business practices that lead to marketing and merchandising opportunities, but for some reason we’re suspicious when an arts organization exhibits the same skill.” She doesn’t just give her opinion on this criticism, she brings in examples. She looks at how they perform now and compares it to how they performed in 2007, before they “sold out.” She uses specific details, analyzing the skill and effort they brought to performances from both time periods, to show the change in income did not change the quality of their art.
One of her most striking pieces is “Breaking Pointe: In an art form that is struggling to stay on its feet the Nutcracker is a gift that takes more than it gives.” One might assume that someone so invested in ballet would enjoy the Nutcracker, a show that is seen in theaters across the country every holiday season. They would be wrong.
“The tyranny of “The Nutcracker” is emblematic of how dull and risk-averse American ballet has become,” Kaufman writes. “Has ballet become so entwined with its “Nutcracker” image, so fearfully wedded to unearthing offerings, that it has forgotten how eye-opening and ultimately nourishing creative destruction can be?”
She uses “The Nutcracker” as a jumping off point to discuss segregation and dwindling creativity in the industry. Another issue “The Nutcracker” more directly causes the ticket price goes up, attendance goes down, vicious circle. She calls for dance companies to care more for their dancers, get more creative with their shows and see the importance of a diverse cast.
Kaufman has extensive knowledge of her beat and uses that knowledge to inform the public about a niche they may not be familiar with, as a good journalist should. She sees dance as a vehicle for telling stories and sharing joy, so when the industry and culture isn’t doing that, she addresses it with precision and care.
Comments