This week is Into the New week, in which the final year students of the Contemporary Performance Practice reveal their skills and shows. It's a challenging few days - all of the artists are pushing at the boundaries of performance - and I am committed to supporting their emergence from the Academy into the wider performance scene.
I refuse to star rate, or even give clear quality assessments of the pieces: I prefer to talk about the performances, think about what the artists are aiming to do, engage in a dialogue et cetera et cetera.
However, I do have one complaint. The programme (which is beautifully designed) is full of very poor writing. The descriptions of the works veers from the self-aggrandising to the incomprehensible. The use of technical jargon, buzzwords and self-consciously erudite phrasing makes it a difficult read (and I love a bit of theory).
Usually, if I want to make a critique, I would point to specifics. However, since this is a consistent problem in writing about Live Art (the old National Review programmes were an exercise in decoding meaning), I'd rather make a blanket complaint and encourage the artists to consider whether expressing themselves in clear, concise language is more or less likely to make their art accessible.
No comments :
Post a Comment