Asia Dance Channel

Possibly Functional in Society: Dance Criticism
Talk by Franz Anton Cramer

By Joelle Jacinto

Dr Franz Anton Cramer

Two talks kicked off the dance summit at the Goethe-Institut in Jakarta: Thomas Lehmen discussed conceptual thinking as a process for contemporary choreography, while German scholar and critic Franz Anton Cramer delivered a talk entitled “Dance Criticism in the World and its (possible) Social Functions." As the summit aimed to establish exchanges between the German dance practitioners and those from the Asia region, and of course exchanges within the region as well, these were quite interesting discussions to open the week’s proceedings. Dr. Cramer’s talk was directed to the participating critics, although it was valuable to the participating choreographers as well, helping to establish what the summit wished to work towards.

Dr. Cramer begins by saying that criticism should aim beyond aesthetic concerns and involve itself with social functions. The critic should be concerned about making dance understood, making dance more popular, a bridge between the choreographers and the audience. With dance being an ephemeral art form, the critic then has to know "how to make dance visible beyond performance." This is perhaps the primary social function of the critic, among the different possible social functions that Cramer has proposed.

The emphasis on the "possibility" of these social functions has to do with the critic's capability of addressing these social functions. Is the critic able to fulfil these social obligations or is the critic simply bashing out their review? This is pursued over the course of the talk.

Dr. Cramer then discusses "dance history's master narratives," reminding us of the social, political and aesthetic categories in which dance exists. It is here that he differentiates modern from contemporary, after a brief historical look at the phases between and the different movements that came out of Germany, including expressionism, constructivism and Tanz Theater. Then he asks us what is contemporary, and what makes contemporary dance? Given that ‘contemporary’ equals ‘new,’ he posits that a work valued by its "newness" isn't properly assessed, and that the concept of "newness" is "extremely boring," and "cannot be the only criteria" for a dance to be contemporary. In a global setting, the definition is definitely more complicated.

He then talks about how dance is exoticized as West looks at East, giving several examples of exoticized colonies, including the 1931 French exposition and French archive of international dance, and books published within the same decade looking at folk dance practice in South East Asian countries. It would seem that Dr. Cramer is perhaps reminding us of instances where European and Asian relationships can go awry, which is interesting given that the dance summit we were attending was organized by Europeans for the South East Asian region.

From discussions of exoticism, Dr. Cramer posits the old juxtaposition between the preoccupation with folklore practice and the preservation of the past with avant garde practitioners exploring possibilities, a practice both in the present and in the future. "Contemporary dance," Cramer suggests, "would be able to resolve the conflict between the two."

He steers the talk back to criticism at this point. Critics are important, he says, because "the way you are allowed to talk or think about dance affects the development of dance." This, I agree, is a very important social function of criticism. Critics afford a visibility or a “readability" to the choreographic work; he mentions that "experts talk in an expert way while non-experts have to deal with the artistic object (the choreography or performance) and the critic's discourse." The critic therefore has a larger responsibility than just shooting their mouth off.

Dr. Cramer enumerates a list of critical strategies, some ideas quite polar, such as "responsibility vs. narcissism." I have myself encountered narcissistic critics, who critique merely to air their opinions, without constructive advice for the artists to improve on their work, or any deference to the audience about other readings that may exist. Another interesting strategy is "dialogue vs. monologue," which is essentially understanding the work on a more informed level (dialogue) vs. understanding the work based only on what the critic saw (monologue), similar to the strategy of evidence vs. hermeneutics; the former being criticism where you see what you see, while the latter engages in a process of understanding the work deeper, asking further questions. I agree with these strategies, but I approach with caution -- there comes a limit to just how "informed" one should be; also, it is somehow implied that the critic's initial observations of the work is negated if one does not open a dialogue on the work.

I feel this caution is well-placed as responsibilities of this magnitude must be dealt with carefully. To emphasize the importance of this responsibility, Dr Cramer ends his lecture with a quote from Gerard Mayen: "The conversation with a work of art needs extreme attention, respect and thoughtfulness. Otherwise, discourse will just be an execution of power."

This goes back to his earlier discussion of exoticism, and emphasizes what the participating critics and choreographers were invited to do at this summit. In effect, Dr. Cramer is requesting for critics in the region of Asia and the Pacific to empower themselves but responsibly, to produce "more qualified, more detailed, more nuanced readings of non-Western performances." And so the exchange begins.