What is the Cultural Value of Modern Dance?

There is a huge difference between entertainment value, cultural value, and artistic value.

Entertainment value is surely sealable by popularity, and sales.

Artistic value can really only assessed over the long-term. J.S. Bach wasn’t even considered in the top-20 living composers of his lifetime (so to speak.)

Cultural value is connected to both entertainment and artistic value, but relates to inherent qualities independent of those.

I thought about this just now because Sydney Skybetter tweeted an article about The Crisis in Modern Dance, which concludes with a quote from New York based choreographer Tatyana Tenenbaum saying about dance that,

“It is a sequestered high art. There is not much of a market for it.”

Her quote really struck a cord with me. I think the sequestration of high art – including dance – is contributing to our financial crisis.

The Americans for the Arts National Arts Index Summary (2009) reports that, “nonprofit arts organizations are losing their ‘market share’ of philanthropy to other charitable areas… Between 1998 and 2007, the percentage of foundation funding directed to the arts decreased from 14.8 to 10.6 percent. The corporate giving share to the arts decreased from 10.3 to 4.6 percent during the same period.”

Somehow, we are losing our value to funders. It may be entirely related to the economy. In this down time funders are prioritizing feeding people over providing arts opportunities. But in my mind that doesn’t fully answer it. I think that the sequestration of dance is actually self-sequestration, and related to decreasing cultural value. That’s both individual product and aggregate impact.

I see how positive and entertaining dance being produced today is, and I think that the artistic value today is as high as it’s ever been. In terms of compositional innovation I’m certain our problems (in dance) aren’t dis-similar from those of classical music.

Image in this post ripped from the Guardian story.

Oh, you shouldn’t have!!!

I had a funny experience today. While presenting at a meeting about arts advocacy in D.C., I was asked a question about leadership, collaboration, and coordination. I responded that I didn’t think anyone questioned my leadership, or the work that we’re doing, and that certainly our efforts to collaborate are welcomed at every turn. I said that while sort of gazing at the ceiling, and with what i thought was an ironic inflection. When I stopped batting my eyelids and looked around I realized that they assumed I was speaking seriously…. I almost stopped to say,  “just kidding!”,  but thought it might undermine my otherwise flawless presentation. : )

That the folks in the room didn’t assume my humor really does speak to the hyperbole that regularly occurs in these kinds of conversations. I am confident in my leadership of the DC Advocates for the Arts.  But I do still regularly question it, and have it questioned for me, and I don’t think that’s a weakness. I almost wish I was like a Luddite, or Randian protagonist, interested only in my own success, but in fact, I am not.  I hope that my leadership is a part of something larger than myself, and if it is, my leadership is replaceable. To me that is not in conflict with my confidence, professionalism, commitment, or leadership, but it does temper my self-promotion.