On KT Niehoff, Amelia Reeber, Dance Critics, and Why Glimmer's Worth Seeing

Photo: Kevin Kauer (killustrate.net)

Earlier today, I came across an old essay from 1992 by The New Yorker's widely-respected dance writer Joan Acocella, called "What Critics Do," in which she enumerates the issues, challenges, and content of reviewing dance. Finding it was a lucky coindidence, because there's an issue I've been meaning to address, and Acocella's essay finally provided an approach.

In it, pointing out that "[T]oday, when advertising revenues are down, all critics are locked into a contest for space" (oh, if only you knew, 1992!), she writes:

Space is thus very, very important. How can critics influence their editors on this score? Together with their talent as writers (and in the case of most publications, far more than their talent as writers), the thing that will determine the editor's decision is the health of the field itself. Is dance hot? Are masterpieces being produced? Are terrific young people coming up? In other words, is there any news here?

Last week, an ongoing storm of emails, Facebook posts, and blog comments by the dance community blew up in public when The Stranger agreed to publish an indignant letter from choreographer KT Niehoff, taking issue with their coverage of dance, in response to Brendan Kiley's reviews of her own company Lingo's A Glimmer of Hope or Skin or Light (which closes at ACT Theatre this weekend) and Amelia Reeber's this is a forgery (which finished its two-week run at the Erickson Theatre last weekend).

The thing is, Kiley's reviews hadn't been particularly negative; what Niehoff mostly took issue was the entire tone and approach, rather than the yea-or-nay assessment. In other words, her real claim was that the dance community deserves better than its reviewers, and in some ways, she has a point.

In discussions with artists, I'm always surprised to the degree that they want criticism rather than features and previews. For my part, I tend to think that a component of supporting the arts is giving space to discussion and other voices besides some supposed expert. A couple weeks ago, I had drinks with Andy Horwitz (I'm currently in New York City), and really liked what he described as the three "views" he founded the blog Culturebot to provide: previews, interviews, and points-of-view.

But artists actually seem to like critics--even ones who take negative views of their work--as long as they're serious, engaged, and thoughtful. As Niehoff put it in her letter, "I am weary of the quip, sarcastic reflections The Stranger dishes out as art reviewing," before allowing, "But I have not done my part either. I have embodied that desperate artist hoping someone will care enough about the work to deem it worthy of writing about. And I have been silenced by this power."

Seen from one perspective, Niehoff has some good points to make (it's true: every dancer in the world does, in fact, twirl and spin, much like Isadora Duncan did), but she was the wrong person to do it. However valid her points, they can be written off (as some of the more sane Stranger commenters pointed out) as the complaint of just another artist who got a review she didn't like. Which makes it so unfortunate that there really weren't many other reviews that went further and deeper into Glimmer, to offer more depth.

See, the thing is, the tone she writes off as "quip" and "sarcastic" is what gets The Stranger readers. And as much as I know everyone loves to hate The Stranger (while reading it obsessively), you have to give it to them that they remain committed to arts coverage in an era when most papers are cutting it. When I moved to Seattle in 2003, there were staff theatre critics at both dailies and both weeklies. Now, there's only two: Kiley at The Stranger, and Misha Berson at the Times. (I'm not sure if Michael Upchurch, who covers contemporary dance and performance for the Times, is staff or not). The Weekly relies on freelancers. The Seattlepi.com, since it went online only, does not, to my knowledge, pay any writers to cover local performing arts. All the dance critics in Seattle are freelance.

So give The Stranger some credit; Kiley's employed not because he makes the paper hip, and not because performing arts coverage makes them lots of money. He's employed because The Stranger, in a rather anachronistic sense of social responsibility, believes that the performing arts, like visual art and books, deserve newspaper coverage in a city as sophisticated and dynamic as Seattle. And when Kiley gets behind an arts group, whatever the tone of the writing that got them there, he can put asses in seats. When he writes a review, that's part (though certainly not all) of what he's supposed to be doing.

Of course, that sort of decision-making of what to endorse and what not involves taste and preference on the critic's part, which Acocella defends. The problem is when there aren't a diversity of voices speaking out about the arts--in other words, a healthy discourse.

I'm actually quite sad that I missed Glimmer and forgery (which I did see in an earlier form last year and loved), but if a large part of critical judgment comes from the fact that, as Acocella points out, "the critic has seen much more dance than the audience," then I'd like to point readers to the assessment of my put-upon plus-one, who went to see Glimmer last weekend without me. After it got out, she texted me:

"Ok yeah. Totally see why KT Niehoff defended that so vehemently. The [negative] reviews were shit. It was wonderfully thought through and careful. About the human condition from a social context, in my view. Points of ambiguity and repetition actually had a purpose. I'm probably informed by a particular context--it was like being 17 again at an artsy party where I didn't know anyone, but with the observational and interpersonal abilities I've developed since then."

In the ensuing phone conversation, she called out the costumes used by the principle dancers (which impressed her), said that the interpersonal dynamics between the characters performed by the principles were so self-evident she wasn't sure why they weren't described in more detail, and finally was deeply impressed by the performances, particular the duet by two male principles (Michael Rioux and Aaron Schwarzman, I presume), which she said was a moving portrayal of aggressiveness mixed with codependence. So, in lieu of a review from me, I hope you'll accept that brief endorsement and take advantage of one of your two final chances to see the show.

So we return to Acocella's point about the health of the art. In Seattle, the level of creativity, energy, and dynamism in dance outshines the traditional theatre by far, which is why I started covering it in the first place. The fairest criticism of dance reviewing isn't that people like Kiley are so objectionable, but that quite simply the art has reached the point that it deserves more than what something like The Stranger is willing--or should--try to do.

As Amelia Reeber suggested in a post on her own blog, there are multiple functions of arts writing--critiques that explore the work, reviews that evaluate and endorse or reject, and finally outright advocacy.

All three are currently still mixed up together, but the good news is that Seattle is lightyears ahead of other cities, where most choreographers would be lucky to have three different reviews to complain about. In addition to the established newspaper writers like Mary Murfin Bailey, Marcie Sillman, Michael Upchurch, Sandi Kurtz, and Brendan Kiley, there are bloggers like Seattle Dances, Amy Mikel of Seattlest (and yes, I know she was criticized by both Niehoff and Reeber, but she's committed to covering dance in the long-term and it's rough learning on the fly), and, of course, The SunBreak. The bad news is that in the long-term, it's going to be hard to get where we need to go, but that's something I'll have to address in another story.