On the one hand we have online reviewing sites for the arts theatreview, and social public political sites like Public Address and and then we have facebook, twitter, myspace and so on as well as blogspots being used as creative, entertainment or social political websites, which open up the possibility for dialogue not available on ordinary websites. The space of personal opinion and artistic expression has broadened in these social media sites to include concept, political topics, heated debates, sharing of information (cut and pasting urls and links), questioning and critiquing the hierarchies of power. This is the deleuzian 'rhizome' effect (#1), changes and voices uniting from across the globe via the internet with the metaphor of grass growing, incorporating the notion of 'grass roots' movements.
Because the authority of voice has been in some ways broken down over the past years as a result of post-modern questions around authorship, power etc and the idea that nothing is really objective (Foucault among many) we find the the voice of so called authority becoming increasingly 'subjective' on internet reviewing sites or atleast transparently succumbing to the idea that this is just this reviewer's opinion. We've seen it in magazines for many years, the reviewer opens an article about a star with 'i am waiting in the hotel room expectantly for .. to appear' and we're included in the writer's experience of meeting a star. In the same vain good documentary making and interviewing is meant to indicate that the subject is not being 'objectively' shown, that the voice of the maker is present, hence we see the interviewer, we hear them. There is no meta-narrative and no 'voice of god' in such documentary making, which is rather an old school ethnographic/anthropological western notion.
Naturally this is a trend, with its own flaws and contradictions, it can be as conceited as claiming to have authority over a subject, it can veil its own power craftfully in the process to achieve the opposite of what it intends. It can also come across as narcissistic, which in recent times has become a hot topic and a dirty word – incriminating facebook among all social media for encouraging public/private 'self obsession.' A great place for social networking, a brilliant scheme for free advertising particularly amongst sub cultures of the arts, environmental and political factions who don't often have financial backing, to reach cross cultural transgloblal audiences which is pitched against an increasingly polarised economic structure between the haves and the have nots, we see the voice of the arts, culture and politics compete with and at times dominate, the voice of the everyday person gossiping, sharing clips of animals and uploading photos of their children. Of course, all the while Facebook makes mega bucks and rumours have it, well not even rumours anymore, its pretty public knowledge, authorities are monitoring people in order to catch 'criminals' just like in the Stasi days in former East Germany.
Then we have blogging, a step removed from a website or a political site like Public Address in which official topics are initiated and debated throughout the country, which is again a democratic and free site anyone can create about anything and have followers, links, videos, photos, debates and can act like a website that is interactive. Because it can be so personal, anything goes on a blog, and anything does go. From fashion to erotic writing, film opinions, political conspiracy theories to personal artist pages and alter egos the space for blogging has nearly replaced traditional websites among up and coming generations, precisely because it is interactive, generative and creative. There is no limit on the information so a lot of recent information about Fukushima among many examples can be passed as fact on blogs, when infact it is merely speculation. Because it provides an alternative voice to mainstream news and science it can sit in a dangerous place sometimes between fabrication and fact, (creating fear and outrage), which are becoming increasingly difficult to discern anyway given the amount of censorship over the media and information that currently occurs with regard to large scale, particularly health and environmental issues.
So then we have the space between, which interests me as the liminal, fertile and problematic space between personal and political/public expression and debate. A space in which boundaries are questionable, as they so often are on the internet.
I take as an example, because this effectively triggered my consideration for this article, a recent post on facebook by a NZ contemporary dance choreographer in Atamira, Jack Gray, who's recent show Kaha (2012) appeared on 'Good morning', a breakfast tv show in NZ to promote their season at Q Theatre. Atamira, a maori run dance company, after 12 years has recently secured a handsome amount of infrastructural funding and this is the first year their work has sold out and had big advertising and big production. Jack Gray is a public figure about to present works and he writes on facebook a long generic statement- clearly angry about someone/something said about his/their work- about how some people need to get a life and that making art is about uplifting and living with love and respect are the changes humanity needs to make. It's brought to my attention by a collegue because she indicates there is a public debate coming out of this post. His post has 120 people 'like' it. Skimming through the thread I notice there is a mix of personal comments like 'cuppa tea? What's happened?' and 'you're the best' to long political rants about the state of the arts in NZ and Atamira's role, standard and success or not within NZ and internationally. Its a chaotic thread and it sums up what I'm musing on.
For a start most people don't know what Jack Gray is refering to and so he appeals to his friends on a personal emotional level, its a cry for help. I'm not dissing him here by the way, I do the same thing myself when I get upset by something publicly, and find it interesting what happened consequentially. But intertwined with this is a mixture of opinions and voices, some soothing, most soothing infact and supportive, and then one stands out as the cause of the discomfort. Peter Takapuna is effectively saying that Atamira's work is not up to scratch after the amount of years they have been in motion, that all that has changed in Maori dance in 20 years is the venue and that they have not followed in the footsteps of internationally esteemed Mau Dance (Samoan choreographer Lemi Ponifasio) and so on because their work is average. He speaks to and for Maori, he engages with a discourse which addresses colonisation and the company's place in decolonising and we deduce from his final comments that he has publicly dismissed their appearance on 'Good morning' as looking like 'performing monkeys', hence the original post on facebook by Jack Gray. We then presume that Peter Takapuna has also made his comments on facebook to begin with, to which Jack Gray is responding.
So in this space between public and private facebook as an example of social media networks has created the murky space for personal expression, which are generic, with specific political and creative critique. Some people call this behaviour 'trolling'. The strict definition of trolling is when someone attacks others opinions usually in a public address type political debate thread repeatedly without much reasoning and turns the debate into a nasty down ward spiral of ad hominems. It is incredibly 'toxic'. In this case I would not say that Peter Takapuna was trolling, though perhaps 'toxic', but the case is borderline considering the unspecified nature of facebook as a 'social' networking site. What he has done is generated discussion to and for Atamira, in which several people present rational and considered arguments for 'Good morning' as a good platform for artists and not a reflection of mediocrity, and Sarah Knox argues that 'success' is a limited view in NZ dance, which always tends toward valuing the international, when success to her is working with children in NZ and changing lives here amongst our own people with our own stories. Takapuna comes back with- take it to the playgrounds of Whangarei and then the playgrounds of Paris, Atamira is aiming small and playing insular. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees the point is that discussion is going, on the misplaced forum of Jack Gray's facebook page.
The debate is interesting, and it is to the detriment of Jack Gray's initial post I suspect, however the space has been opened up by him in making his comment public in the first place, ON FACEBOOK. It got me thinking, as someone who (subjectively speaking here) also makes broad sweeping accusations and such comments on facebook about my supposed injustices in NZ dance/arts, what comes from this? Because facebook as an example is about social popularity essentially, we see someone who is socially popular being defended and supported and the voice of a genuine critique being ostracised. While it is 'inappropriate' within this forum to present such attacks on another artist because it is 'anti-social' what Takapuna presents is valid as commentary, yet it is perhaps misplaced because there is no other platform for his expression and it is harsh.
Furthermore, when critical debates are taken personally, or even intended personally (and Takapuna retracts his statement that they looked like 'performing monkeys' later in the thread realising it is harsh and offers to have a hui in which he will provide the hangi, but i suspect that by now it is too late, the damage has been done) there is no open space for genuine listening or discussion. The space is closed down. There are also no 'rules' which makes the space somewhat 'unsafe'. The question really then becomes about self-regulation in these cases as it is a public and PERSONAL platform, and also generating a space for critique and for expression to actually be safe to do- on either side, in a more political sense. They have made all of this public, therefore it IS public discussion, abeit on facebook.
Peter Takapuna saying that it is 'not personal' when on a facebook thread seems inaccurate. However, he is also right. It is very difficult for artists to take any sort of criticism because our artmaking IS personal for us. For others not making art, it seems like it is not personal and yet it probably very likely is and reflective of once again subjective interests and personal motivations. The space between objective and subjective is indeed an interesting one, played out here, including by me as a bystander also invested in personal and political debates such as these. Which are valid, but they may skewed. I actually valued Takapuna's response, it is an alternative opinion, perhaps marginalised, which has a point and addresses genuine concerns often not faced by companies in NZ dance. So what IS the right space for critique which may be useful instead of alienating and damaging? Is there a space at all or is it because there is no space for it that it comes out like this, in toxic ways?
I would like to propose that NZ in general (broad sweeping generalisation) is not very experienced at public critique or debate, discussion, particularly not in public live forums, but the speed with which discussions online become 'out of control' also suggests that maturity and openess to multiple voices/alternative voices online needs to happen as well.
Many debates have occurred on the performance reviewing website Theatreview, which have gone deep into fractured opinions and arguments, which open a space for public discussion in dance, which being NZ, and not so experienced at this, have often caused grave offence or had comments removed and barred by editors. I have been in such discussions, I have been on both sides of them, initiating them and having them launched at my own work. What does this do for the artists? For the culture? For the medium of performance and the medium of writing/critique?
The clearest example for me of such conduct is Celine Sumich's review of my CNZ funded show and residency with Mau at Corban Estate, Toxic White Elephant Shock, in which the reviewer, who I had personally fallen out with a year prior. Already this is a loaded review right? Perhaps this reviewer should not be reviewing?
You can see what's coming of course. So the review of my first properly funded work after several years which also received the Tup Lang Award, which most people found provocative and powerful, some found overwhelming and chaotic, was underhandedly dismissive and labelling the work essentially futile. Please note that this is quite common of experimental NZ dance work for a reviewer to not understand the work or like it because it is sitting outside the usual confines of what 'dance should be' particularly in NZ. So what preceeded was a 30 response thread of people mostly in defence of the work and the few that were in support of the reviewer, Celine Sumich, had not seen the show. What was noticable about the thread was the narcissism shall we say of the reviewer, who would continually implicate herself personally in the thread so that the conversation ended up being about her. This once again blurs the line between public and private, personal and political and we may question the voice of authority as not having honest motivations.
On the one hand we have a post from Jack Gray in which it is a personal response to a comment on facebook, a social media network, by Peter Takapuna on his own page, who then makes no further comment on the thread upon which a debate rages amidst general comforting posts from friends. On the other hand we have a formal review on a public and esteemed reviewing website in which the reviewer Celine Sumich not only already has a personal issue with me, the choreographer in question, aside from anything, but continues to comment throughout the discussion so that the debate turns into being about her sexuality with the final poignant comment from someone anonymous saying 'wait, what does celine's sexuality have to do with the show?'in which both Celine Sumich the reviewer and I, Alexa Wilson, are barred by the editor from making any further comments.
I have chosen a personal example, among so many unrelated ones on theatreview throughout the years to follow the trend of 'subjective' writings as a non-authoritarian stance to reveal my humanity, but in which I also feel that because of the hands on nature of the experience there IS authority to speak upon the matter from an experiential perspective. Which relates to the topic at hand. Also the authority of the topic is transparent, my motivations are entirely revealed in this moment, although there has been distance from the event of 3 and a half years unlike the recent debate about Atamira.
Are there uses in being a little step removed? This is my point. While I do value facebook and I am also posting this subjective and objective musing on my own blogspot! To then share with facebook! I also see the use of a one step removed platform or forum for discussion. I am at once questioning the personal and subjective transgressing of facebook as a platform for personal/social critique and encouraging a more considered or 'safe' dialogue or platform for open discussion of alternative perspectives, though I do not know what this is. I do not find academic forums useful but alienating for community debates, although perhaps a bit more mediation here would be beneficial. I am questioning the open unregulated nature of reviewing on theatreview and also suggesting that if things start personal then they will end personal, however thinly veiled the authoritive position is. When artists review other artists there is an understanding and an insularity, when we blow open a site like facebook with real opinions and DIFFERENT ones is it democratic to allow freedom of speech, and fascist to lock down alternative voices, or is it un/professional? These are all questions, to which I really have no answers. But what I do know is that when misplaced opinions and personal agendas get mixed with professional critique in the arts it is definitely a quagmire in which defences get solidified and real genuine discussion gets closed down. It can all too easily be assumed that 'tall poppy syndrome' is in action rather than any real and useful critique.
Peter Takapuna says he knows his words will create discord and implies that its time to take the hats and gloves off and stop being so polite. This is a valid point in NZ dance/arts for major companies, who tend to have less scrutiny than experimental works because of some unwritten power position they hold. (My agenda revealed?) However as someone else commented him shouting 'I will not be silenced' is self silencing. It is also narcissistic, as are the artists will to fervently defend their egos against critique in public. When you put art out there its fair game it will be critiqued. Yet, critiqued by who? Do they know what they're talking about in this country? Who are the people critiquing? Do they have their own agendas? Very likely. Celine Sumich's need to defend her opinion in public brought to light the narcissism of the writer infused in today's online/public/private reviewing sites. Where is the line? what are the issues at hand? Can we remove the ego and agenda from the art and the critique of the art in these media? Or have they become so infused, that is it commonplace for no boundaries to be made, no reason expressed, and no authority made? It seems to be a power game in this case, which is dangerous for all involved. It does not benefit the art, the artist, the reviewer or the critic. Especially in this small country/community/communities. Yet the other alternative, the academic model, also has the pitfalls of institutionalised and exclusive power.
In my subjective objective opinion.
Main Question/s: Can experimental NZ works be entered into a written dialogue about without it being by friends/ex friends or resorting to violent misunderstandings and on the other hand is there a safe space for mainstream work to be critiqued without it coming from or being responded to from a defensive 'personal' standpoint within some of these public/private spaces without the space being closed down? A space for discussion which furthers the work and moves it into the world to develop a rich dialogue for exciting art to be fostered, challenged, understood, to honour that it causes affect in a positive way and also a space in which critique and alternative voices are also enriching to largely unchallenged works.
I think NZ is ripe and ready for such a space.
Quote below supplied by Val Smith in regard to online narcissism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_boundaries
"According to Hotchkiss,[8] narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist will be treated as if they are part of the narcissist and be expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.
As one ex put it, “If you had firm boundaries in the face of a narcissist, the relationship wouldn't last”.[9]
1# Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari use the term "rhizome" and "rhizomatic" to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. In A Thousand Plateaus, they oppose it to an arborescentconception of knowledge, which works with dualist categories and binary choices. A rhizome works with planar and trans-species connections, while an arborescent model works with vertical and linear connections. Their use of the "orchid and the wasp" is taken from the biological concept of mutualism, in which two different species interact together to form a multiplicity (i.e. a unity that is multiple in itself). Horizontal gene transfer would also be a good illustration.
