Comments on: That’s Why I Want To Disappoint You

By: Da Noise: Chapter 2 « countercritic

Da Noise: Chapter 2 « countercritic — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:53:23 +0000

[...] Then why try to pin these two together? Because Ross is arguing that Schoenberg is responsible, through totalitarian means and the establishment of private concerts, of disenfranchising the classical audience. Ross believes we are the inheritors of this anti-audience mentality. But Beethoven is really responsible for this, surely. He is arguably the first modern composer, both in personality and style of music. The bottom line is that with the advent of true modernism came an impulse to upend the status quo. IT HAPPENED, and Schoenberg just happened to be there. Right place, right time. He can be held no more accountable than anyone else (save Boulez, wink). In fact, his socio-historical-political context should aleviate him of a lot of the responsibility. He was an artist of his time, and an artist of his time, which is the definition by which we still go today, always seeks the new in an effort to establish his own voice and to critique the present. That’s it. Just ask Jerome Bell. [...]

By: Performing Arts » Dance Today: Philip Bither talks J�r�me Bel

Performing Arts » Dance Today: Philip Bither talks J�r�me Bel — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:04:43 +0000

[...] “When I walked into the theater and I saw two chairs facing each other, separated by about 20 feet, two bottles of water and a laptop, I was sure this was going to be an utter disaster, a pretentious piece of shit, and something unduly excruciating that I would not be able to escape…” Instead, he says he found “an altogether mesmerizing and soul-filling experience…It’s also very entertaining, and it communicates massive amounts of information, in a way that works of art cannot always communicate on their own. This is art about art. Dance about dance. And, mainly, its about today.” click here to read the rest of his thoughtful review [...]

By: countercritic

countercritic — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:13:12 +0000

Hey Tonya:

My thought was…that his first objection was that the nudity goes against his culture. But it also goes against our culture. By that, I mean, he was objecting to Jerome getting naked in front of him, which any one of us, well, except for me, would have probably objected to as well. It’s a taboo for both cultures, which is probably why it’s something Bel is interested in exploring, at least from the Western view.

As for the Thai sex shops, I don’t doubt that he’s right. But those shops are still part of their culture, even if the larger part of their culture rejects them. They exist, and it’s Thai people who work in them. This is a thorny subject. All the more reason to end the piece when it comes up. (Although I really did want to see Bel don the full monty.)

By: tonya

tonya — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:42:58 +0000

Just one thing — there AREN’T holes in Klunchun’s last argument — he has the last word, remember? Thai women who work in those heinous clubs which have been set up by and for Western men are not out there doing the same thing Bel is.