I am in the midst of producing a dance theater production titled All Good Men. All Good Men began its life as a dance theater adaptation of a Dylan Thomas filmscript (The Doctor and the Devils - originally published 1953.) I have not sought permission to adapt and perform the script.
Completely unrelated: Michael Jackson passed recently. I was never a teenage girl, and we didn’t have cable when I was growing up, so while I appreciate his music, MJ never meant much to me. But a lot of my friends are in full Triple M swing (Michael Memorial Mode), and one of them recently posted the following on facebook. It’s a bunch of clips from Fred Astaire movies, set to MJ’s song Smooth Criminal.
While enjoying the cool of the video, I couldn’t help wondering how long this will stay up; there is no way the music has been licensed (or it would have a permission granted credit), and I’m quite certain that the movies haven’t be licensed either. To see a longer post on copyright, click here. In case you don’t want to read that:
If someone makes something, they own its copyright. The term of copyright can expire, but in the case of both MJ music and Astaire movies, I’m certain that’s not the case. Copyright permission is – therefore – required. There’s a lot of legal work happening now about transformative use. Transformative Use is using part of something copyrighted to make something new – that you then own the copyright of. The famous Barack Obama picture by Shepard Fairey is a fine example.
You can see stuff about that here, here, and here. Fairey talks about it here and here. This video of Fairey talking about his work is also worth a view.
With Transformative Use one is re-working an existing piece to create something totally new. Tansformative use is one of the concepts that exists within Fair Use law. A Fair Use – Transformative Use defense of a usage does not mean that a usage is legal. But that defense does apply – in concept – with the MJ/Astaire video, Obama pic, and my new dance theater piece. Judgments in Fair Use defended lawsuits usually hinge around impact on the value of the previously existing copyrighted product. Does the value of the AP photograph decline because of Fairey’s use? Does the video bring down the value of MJ’s or MGM’s catalog? Does my production bring down the value of Thomas’s work? With Fairey’s pic his usage certainly didn’t devalue the original photograph. With the MJ video – if a song or video is available for free, people won’t buy it (as much.) With my production, I’m pretty sure I’m not harming the value of Thomas’s product.
Aside from value, there is the issue of credit. I am crediting Thomas, and the video credits Jackson and the film participants. The Ap is suing Fairey to get credit for the photograph (as you can see in one of the links.) If whomever posted that video doesn’t have permission -even though the usage is transformative- I wouldn’t be surprised to see it get pulled.
Here is the second in a series of five posts I’m creating for OvationTv.com:
On Thursday May 21st, 2009, the University of California Press in association with CORE: and Ovation TV hosted a panel discussion to consider the issues documented in Bill Ivey’s book, Arts Inc. Gaynor Stachan-Chun, Senior Vice President of Marketing at Ovation TV, moderated the discussion with Mr. Ivey, Agnes Gund and Robert Lynch.
Read the intro blog here.
How we define ‘Art’ and ‘Culture’ really influences how we buy and sell our work as Artists. In this video clip Robert Lynch discusses how Native American cultures do not have Professional Artists. In response to Lynch’s statement, Agnes Gund forwards the idea that defining what it means to be an artist sometimes leads to a perception of art as elitist.
When I tell people that I am a dancer, they frequently ask if I am professional. I always have a hard time answering the question. What does it mean to be a professional artist? Is it an economic distinction? Are they asking – do you make a living being an artist? Perhaps they are asking – do people pay you for your work? I have the sense that in many people’s minds being professional is an economic distinction. Lynch and Gund point out in this clip that how we define our work influences the reception of our work. How do you define your work? Is asserting professionalism in art creating a divide between you and your audience?
I had a chance to ask Robert Lynch a few questions about the part of the discussion in this clip. Here’s the Q &A:
In his book on the Creative Economy, Thomas Borrup cites that community is defined by a set of terms (including social, civic, economic, and physical bonds), and in this first video excerpt you talk about how Art is hard to define, and that usually our definition or art is limiting. Why is it important how we define art?
Robert Lynch: I think it is important to think about definition simply because so often defining narrowly has really meant being exclusive, only certain kinds of art will be considered excellent, or worthy of funding, or valuable to study. In a democracy we should be looking constantly at what others tell us we should believe and we should actively question and contribute to the dialogue. When it comes to public policy which is what the panel was about the discussion of definition is critical because policy at the federal, state and local government as well as private sector levels is what dictates who will get money, what categories will even be considered, what our children will study, and even how goods/art will be regulated, marketed, celebrated, and made accessible.
Do you ever question our government’s spending priorities? We’re spending billions and billions to save companies too large to fail, and not enough on smaller bailouts – including arts bailouts – that would reap larger and broader economic benefits. Why do you think the arts are not receiving more support?
Robert Lynch: I question government spending priorities all the time, especially in the arts. Regarding why the arts are not receiving more support there are several reasons. But first it is important to understand what support “they” are getting and of course what “they” include. The not for profit arts include about 100,000 not for profit 501c3 organizations in the US like museums, opera, ballet, etc. The for profit arts include another 550,000 businesses such as music stores, art galleries, design firms, Hollywood, Broadway etc.
To read the rest of the interview, check out the post on Ovation here.
Here is the first in a series of five posts that I’m creating for OvationTV.com:
Bill Ivey’s new book, Arts, Inc.: How Greed and Neglect Have Destroyed Our Cultural Rights, combines personal and professional experience with policy analysis to make a case for reshaping America’s cultural system. Twice elected Chairman of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Ivey was Director of the Country Music Foundation from 1971 to 1998, before serving as the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (from 1998 through 2001.) On Thursday May 21st, 2009, the University of California Press in association with CORE: and Ovation TV hosted a panel discussion and book signing to consider the issues documented in Ivey’s book. Gaynor Stachan-Chun, Senior Vice President of Marketing at Ovation TV, moderated the discussion with Mr. Ivey, Agnes Gund and Robert Lynch.
Arts, Inc. Discussion Panelists
(from left to right: Gaynor Strachan-Chun, Robert Lynch, Agnes Gund and Bill Ivey)
Their conversation touched on a lot of really interesting issues, including: the value of creativity, how we pay for the arts, and what leaders might do to help the arts. As a citizen, and an advocate for the arts, I question our government’s spending priorities. We’re spending billions and billions to save companies too large to fail, and not enough on smaller bailouts – including arts bailouts – that would reap larger and more widespread economic benefits. Michael Kaiser, arts organization guru and current President of the Kennedy Center wrote in the Washington Post that “the arts in the United States provide 5.7 million jobs and account for $166 billion in economic activity annually.” According to the GM website, that company employs just 252,000 – and that’s globally – not just in the United States. Why are we not spending more to save arts institutions? Given the many compelling priorities facing the administration such as the economy and Healthcare reform, and the competition for funding, I think public discussion about the arts, arts education and America’s cultural system is critical.
To read the rest of the post go to the OvationTv.com website here.
Thank you to everyone who came out for the open rehearsal of All Good Men yesterday at Artomatic. My mother emailed me the quote in the picture above – by Pearl Primus – and I thought I’d put it up here.
All Good Men is not about prejudice, but more about ‘the hate that hate made‘. As independent as we may be in this free nation, we all influence each other. More than any moralizing about prejudice, that is what All Good Men deals with. Tickets just went on sale, CLICK HERE to buy your tickets for the July 16th or 18th performances.
To see some clips from the open rehearsal, click here to find Bettmann Dances on Facebook.
Thank you to to Ashtan, Allen, Jessica, and the dancers for sharing themselves at the open rehearsal. I’m confident that we’re on our way to something worthy of our collective voices.
I’ve decided that rather than trying to have the dancers voice the theater sections, we’re going to pre-record those. Creating a music/theater score for the performers is really going to free us up to be inventive and bold in our performance. Recording session this sunday. Buy your tickets today!
I did a show this past Thursday and got a positive review… which was pretty exciting. Here is the part of George Jackson’s review that talks about the duet that I and Kate Jordan did:
“Best on the program was a truly impromptu number that came into being because a dancer, Sylvana Christopher Sandoz, needed for the evening’s final item, had sent word that she was running late. Rather than announce a long intermission, one of The Dinner Party’s hosts – Amanda Abrams – accepted an offer by Kate Jordan, choreographer of the final item, and Robert Bettmann, a former participant, to improvise a duet. Available was a bouncy piece of country western music. Jordan and Bettmann courted to it with a jaunt as fresh as new mown clover. She, streamlined, had force, speed and unabashed glee. He, lanky, pretended to be laid back but was all angles – sensually so. I’ve seen him dance before but not so seamlessly and cleanly. Together, this pair nonchalantly fused hip hop and bits of ballet to a square dance stride and conjured up the likes of Lil’ Abner and Daisy Mae’s grandkids. It is a generation that has been to the Big City, at least via the television tube.”
Reviews are part of the life-blood of an artist. You need them to get new audience. But at the same time, as an artist, you have to ignore how your work might be perceived, or you can’t do the work.
I’m working at Tryst this morning and met a good guy, who is a member of the armed service. He shared with me this quote from Roosevelt, and I told him about the following from E. B. White.
Theodore Roosevelt
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
E. B. White
The critic leaves at curtain fall To find, in starting to review it, He scarcely saw the play at all For watching his reaction to it.
And to my new friend, and all of the other servicemen and women out there: stay safe. _____________
Later same day: I’m not a critic hater, and I think this post makes me seem like one. I mean, “everyone hates a critic”, but not really. To wit:
1) There are lots of very good critics, and they serve a vital role.
2) Being a critic is being an artist/risk-taker (like all writing.)
3) With some frequency critics’ writing shows more craft and consideration than the performances they are forced to visit with, and,
4) I think criticism regularly creates more thought than the performances that stimulated the reviews.
There’s a myth in the Contact Improv community that you should dance the same way with everybody. That if you’re a good loving contacter, you dance the same way with everybody, and you love dancing with everybody the same. I’ve been doing Contact Improvisation for 15 years, and have studied with some wonderful teachers – including Nancy Stark Smith, Anne Cooper Albright, Andrew Harwood… – and it’s absolutely clear to me that we all dance differently with one another.
The Contact community is open, and caring. Closing doors to connection is not encouraged. But I have seen the most generous dancers exert clear control over the depth of connection in a dance. They don’t close the door, but they know not to fling it wide open with every dance either. That’s something that many amateurs can not perceive at first.
We are all capable of being truly sensitive to ourselves and others at the same time. But you can’t control other people. If you find yourself dancing with someone who is not really being sensitive to you – what can you do? What should you do?
If I feel like I’m having a dance with someone who is not present with me, I get more distant. And I have developed a variety of physical skills to create slight distances. (I’ll be teaching some exercises to develop those skills this weekend.) If I try to take some distance and they don’t let me – they are unresponsive to me – I know to push a little further away, and create as much distance as I need until I find myself in a dance I am comfortable with.
The class I’m teaching this Saturday at Artomatic will introduce some exercises focusing on control of our boundaries, and the edges of contact. I hope you’ll join me. Saturday, 2-3:30pm on the 6th floor dance stage at Artomatic. I’ve designed this class to be friendly for beginners, but hopefully of interest to those with experience, too.
Contact dance is intimate. It is built around following a point of contact on someone else’s body, with a point on your body. But the release and flow of improvisation do not negate the need to be able to make choices. This class will allow us to practice some options for dance connections.
The video here is a nice example of Contact dance. I see in it how partners follow the point of contact as a guide to following each other’s energy.
The last few days I’ve been working on a series of blog posts for OvationTv.Com. They’ve got me framing some really interesting video clips related to Bill Ivey’s new book, Arts, Inc. The book raises some excellent questions about how we understand art.
At the same time, I’ve been celebrating publication of my book. (For some excerpts find the Somatic Ecology page on Facebook.) I got a copy in the mail from the publisher today, and found a footnote in my presentation of the Galileo material that I always really liked. The quotation in the footnote is from Galileo’s father, who was a professional musician. For me his thoughts highlight that Science and Art share an ethos of clarity.
The sentence in the book is, “Galileo, who would spend his entire lifetime fighting for objectivity, was born to a family which supported questioning and intellectual rigor over faith in tradition.” The footnote is:
“Galileo’s father in particular clearly influenced his intellectual bent. Consider the following from his father’s Dialogue of Ancient and Modern Music which was published at the time that Galileo was in University. ‘It appears to me that they, who in proof of any assertion rely simply on the weight of authority, without adducing any argument in support of it, act very absurdly. I on the contrary, wish to be allowed freely to question and freely to answer you without any sort of adulation as well becomes those who are in search of truth.’ [in Fermi, Laura and Bernardini, Gilberto Galileo and the Scientific Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 1961) 8]”
You sorta gotta understand the stranglehold that Artistotelian philosophy had on the science of the period to really appreciate the quote, but trust that his attitude was not common.
More another time, perhaps, on connections between art and science.
I attended another Creative Economy event yesterday afternoon at the D.C. Economic Partnership. The Partnership works to build business in D.C., and they seem to have a mature vision. They are a major partner in the District’s ongoing Creative Economy study, which is assessing the existing creative economy (artists, performers, graphic designers, chefs, film-makers, web-designers, etc.) and will conclude with a set of guidelines or recommendations for future development.
At this point they’ve gathered the data, and are now figuring out what to do about it/do with it. In motivating both private investment and government spending the Creative Economy study could have a real impact on the city for years to come. The event yesterday included presentations by five panelists, including the Director of the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities, and residents of Sunderland, England (one of the District’s Sister Cities.) Sunderland apparently has a vibrant arts sector, and several members of that community offered their thoughts on why/how that is. The Creative Economy study is gathering facts, but it is also gathering ideas. Yesterday was an idea session.
Here (un-attributed – sorry I forgot my notebook) are some of the ideas that grabbed my attention, in no particular order, and without any endorsement.
I wrote a post not long ago about some of the challenges to voting rights for the District. You can see that here. At the end of that post you will notice that I had to make a correction; these issues are complex.
I just received the following from someone at the D.C. City Council. I plan on attending, and encourage anyone interested in local politics/advocacy to attend as well. These issues are complex, and it is important to try and spread our opinions and ideas professionally, with as much understanding as possible.
In a democracy being a part of the solution = being willing to be a part of the process, in whatever way.
John A. Wilson Building, Council Chambers (Room 500)
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Panel One: Framing the Discussion
The Honorable Reverend Walter Fauntroy, Former DC Delegate to U.S. House of Representatives; Pioneer of DC Statehood & Home Rule Movements The Honorable Jamin Raskin, Maryland State Senator; Constitutional Law Professor, American University’s Washington College of Law
Panel Two: The Impact of Voting Rights, Statehood, and Similar Measures to the Home Rule Charter and Structure of the District of Columbia
Brian Flowers, Counsel to the Council of the District of Columbia Peter J. Nickles, Attorney General for the District of Columbia
Panel Three: The Constitutionality of the DC House Voting Rights Act of 2009
The Honorable Patricia Wald, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Jonathan R. Siegel, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School Walter Smith, Executive Director, DC Appleseed Center; District of Columbia Bar, The District of Columbia Affairs Section
Panel Four: Beyond the DC Voting Rights Act: Additional Pathways to Full Democracy
Manus Cooney, Constitutional Lawyer, TCH Group; Former Staff Director for Senate Judiciary Committee and Counsel to U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Richard (Rick) Dykema, Chief of Staff to U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Stephen Pershing, Constitutional Lawyer, Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C.; Adjunct Professor George Washington University Law School The Honorable John Capozzi, Former “Shadow” U.S. Representative for the District of Columbia Johnny Barnes, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area
Panel Five: Voting Rights, Statehood and Full Self-Determination for the District of Columbia: A Political Analysis
The Honorable Tom Davis, Former U.S. Congressman from Virginia
Panel Six: Perspectives from Future Legal Scholars and Political Leaders
Edneka Haynes, 3rd Year Student, Howard University School of Law Jackie Ouidia, Student Body and BLSA President
There are times of quiet grace, peace, and joy in all of our lives. For me: times sitting on a dock, or enjoying a meal. But there are also, for all of us, times of pain, suffering, and desperation. Not to make a joke of it, but I think of the saying, “Life: No one gets out alive.”
About two weeks ago I posted as my Facebook status, “Control is over-rated: Discuss.” I got some very interesting comments. I think the positivity of control is largely an issue of balance. I wrote something similar about Pride a few weeks ago, which you can see here. I’m a big fan of E.B. White, who once wrote a version of a psalm in saying,
“I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day.”
When I hear and see pain in the world I’m always brought to the moment with that feeling White describes. What should I be doing about this? I experienced that tension vibrantly the other day. I met a new friend and colleague for a very enjoyable lunch. We sat outside. As I was stuffing my mouth with my first big bite – and I do mean, like, stuffing my mouth – a homeless person walked by and asked for change. I’m mumbling a denial of money for food as I’m stuffing my face with a really delicious salad.
I wrote in an earlier post about how money buys you isolation. It buys you distance from many of the pains that people without money go through. That does not negate the pains that we all have. But we all do not share the same amount of control. For some reason it seems that those with more control should (and I mean this morally) try to give some of that control to the people with less of it. Gloriously, lots of people with greater control have been with that project for some time.
There are sad, internal times in all our lives. A friend’s mother is suffering from cancer. I can see what that feels like. And there is no way to control it. It is like flying in a helicopter upside down. We control each other so little, and influence each other so very much. This is a lot of thoughts for one post. I’ll end with this possibility: The less control you have, the simpler things are. Control is a complication managed by our collective humanity.
I don’t want to pollute this idealistic post with the crass realism of the real world. But that is in fact where we all live. It’s because of the project I’m working on that I’ve been thinking about control. Dylan Thomas created these characters who are good, and bad, and who all influence one another. In the preface to my book (out in two weeks!) I quote Albert Einstein who said that we should seek the simplest solutions and not simpler. I believe that understanding control as a community managed resource can help us negotiate sharing of our capacity to influence each other toward the good.
