Alastair Macaulay serving face for Bwog

In keeping with the theme of making our baby Bwoggers cover events they have no contextual knowledge of, we sent our Sunday daily editor to Monday night’s roundtable discussion of dance criticism at Barnard titled “Team Dance: The Dance Critics of the New York Time.” Mason Amelotte shares his thoughts below.

I entered the unfamiliar Julius S. Held auditorium approximately thirty minutes prior to the scheduled start time of the discussion (a critic of critics is always early), and was greeted by at least sixty panel-goers over the age of 60, not including the three or four other undergrads in attendance with me. I’m still unsure of these undergrads, though. I often found myself pondering the questions, “Are they grandmas?? Or just art students going through a vintage phase??” After the initial confusion of thinking I had accidentally stumbled into an assisted living facility had worn off, I made my way through the geriatric section towards the back of the room where I took my seat.

The panel consisted of Alastair Macaulay, chief dance critic of The New York Times, as well as three freelance dance critics for the newspaper: Gia Kourlas, Brian Seibert, and Siobhan Burke, both an alumnus of and current dance lecturer at Barnard College. Lynn Garafola, who serves as the co-chair of Barnard’s dance department, led the panel. Outside of Barnard, Garafola is a well-known dance critic and historian. The discussion itself lasted a little under 75 minutes and was followed by a brief Q&A session.

The discussion opened with each member of the panel describing their background and how they got into dance criticism as an occupation. With the exception of Macaulay, each critic had grown up practicing some form of dance, from modern style to tap and ballet to Irish step. Macaulay described his obsession with “letter writing” as a child, an obsession that led him to write about dance for fashion/gossip magazines before eventually being introduced to Mary Clarke, then editor of Dancing Times.

While they had no problem spending a good part of the introduction describing their road to becoming a dance critic, the panel members had a more difficult time answering what they personally got out of writing criticisms. Macaulay mentioned the beauty of the connection between “the head and the heart,” which he found was made visible through exploring the genre of criticism. Both Kourlas and Seibert pointed out the challenging nature of precisely conveying how one feels after experiencing a performance. Kourlas compared the balance of objective criticism and emotional analysis to dance choreography itself, saying it satisfied her to see these criticisms come to fruition. As every liberal arts student should, Burke talked about evoking experience through language, and the delight is gives her to struggle with the ambiguity of a dance and her own response to it.

One topic of interest that arose repeatedly was the specific style of the New York Times. Macaulay found the way the editors decide who to call a Mr and Mrs “interesting.” According to the chief critic, the honorifics are only placed before a person’s name if said person is worthy of “an obituary on the front page.” Among the list of words that the dance critics are restricted from using are “launch” “community” or “curate” (as a verb). Seibert cheekily commented that she often makes sure to use those words often when “writing for another community.” Similarly, Macaulay revealed that “to use the first person singular more than once in a review is considered vulgar.”

Garafola also asked logistical questions about the editorial process for dance reviews at the New York Times. Most freelance critics attend a performance every weeknight, with 11AM deadlines for their reviews the next morning. After receiving a playback with some line edits and one or two questions from their assigned editor, the critics then revise their draft before sending it off to the copy desk, where around sixteen copy editors help enforce NYT style. After making some tiny adjustments, the critic then sends the review to “the Slot,” an editor who usually has one final question regarding the piece. This process occurs before the close of business that same day, and the review is usually published the following day.

The last segment of the discussion covered gender in dance, or more specifically how each critic has encountered gender in various performances and their thoughts. Macaulay, as a gay man, thought that same-sex dancing, specifically in ballet, has changed dramatically over the past few decades. The other members of the panel echoed his criticisms of certain choreographers imposing strict gender roles on their dancers. Garafola then asked Burke, as a Barnard alumnus, how she sees gender sensitivity playing out in her writing. Burke did admit to having a heightened awareness towards gender dynamics in dances as a result of attending Barnard, and stated that she often does “make an effort to comment on [gender dynamics] and call them out” when necessary. For instance, after seeing a gang rape depicted by dance, she noticed, “it wasn’t a critique [of rape] but just kind of a ‘Can I choreograph that?’ moment” to which she remarked, “So that was really annoying.” Seibert admitted that her discussion of gender could be more rigorous and that it’s “something [she’d] like to explore more in the future.”

Overall, the panel discussion was a comical (thanks to Macaulay) and informative description of what it’s like to serve as a critic for a publication as well known as the New York Times.

Image courtesy of Mason Amelotte