查看文章

One of the most heated dance debates in the 1990’s arose when New Yorker’s dance critic Arlene Croce published the essay,“Discussing the Undiscussable”, in which she declared that she would not review Bill T. Jones’ Still/Here-would not even see it-because she considered the show beyond the reach of criticism. Croce argues that the cast members of Still/Here-sick people whom Jones had signed up-had no choice other than to be sick. 1 In Croce’s view, the choreographer had crossed the line between theatre and reality. Choreographer Bill T. Jones’ Still/Here is based on a series of survival workshops which Jones, who is HIV positive, held around the US The workshop participants, who were dying or critically ill, were videotaped talking about their pain, their anxieties and their hopes. During Still/Here, the tapes are played on screens whilst Jones’ company dances in front of them. Arlene Croce said that she could not review someone she feels sorry for or hopeless about. She defined Jones’ work as ‘victim art’, art that forces the viewer to pity blacks, abused women or homosexuals. Croce’s writing aroused a cultural debate for and against, but also a discussion of the criteria of dance criticism. Unfortunately, this discussion has not yet reached philosophical reflection on making and perceiving a dancework. 2 Croce stressed the point that mere victimhood in and of itself is insufficient for the creation of an art spectacle. Her argumentation of “crossing the line between theatre and reality” reveals one of the basic arguments for the existence of aesthetics: the justification for the autonomous position of art and its aesthetic values and aesthetic …