Dialogue – Wen Wei Dance, May 25, 2017

Wen Wei Wang’s Dialogue felt more like a series of dance vignettes organized along a theme than one continuous, complete piece. Each segment highlighted the individuality of the dancers, suggesting that the path to dialogue and understanding lies in the appreciation of others’ unique perspectives. In its best sequences, Dialogue plays with the dichotomy between the emotional vulnerability of its dancers and the strength of their bodies, offering a visual parallel to the requirements of meaningful communication: openness and confidence. The dialogue metaphor can be extended to the audience’s reaction to the dancers and what we bring into our interpretations of each vignette.

One of the early segments felt like a dialogue with another work of art I’d seen recently. In a scene reminiscent of a rave, Nicholas Lydiate, wearing nothing but sunglasses and underwear, joins the other fully clad dancers grooving to drum and bass. His wardrobe is the only vulnerable thing about him – he is confident and cocky; a scene-stealer, performing deep squats and gyrating with abandon. I am watching him, but I am thinking about The Sleepwalker, an uncannily realistic bronze sculpture of a man in his tighty-whities, frozen mid-step along the Highline Park in NYC. He looks like a “living statue” street performer – the ones who make you jump by moving suddenly as you pass. It takes a few uneasy minutes to realize that he is, in fact, an inanimate sculpture. Tony Matelli, the artist, describes The Sleepwalker as an existentialist piece – there is something so lost and vulnerable and confused about seeing this man exposed and out of place outdoors that it inspires a feeling of dread about the world. Seeing Lydiate come out on stage full of swagger in his unflattering white underwear, I felt like he was reclaiming this man, dispelling the dread by giving us a peek into the Sleepwalker’s internal life. He only looks vulnerable, but inside, his life is full of movement and strength and surety and humour. There is joy to be found in this world. It’s all about perspective.

A later sequence moved me to tears and felt like the heart of the entire performance. Arash Khakpour begins a solo where his movements speak of shame and insecurity. He uses his shirt to hide his face, drawing the bottom hem up over his head, erasing himself from view. The others flock to him, pulling his shirt back down, beginning a beautiful and tender interplay amongst the entire company of dancers as Khakpour continues to try to hide himself while the others compassionately unveil him. They move together in a circle, tightening and then loosening their grips on each other, each weaving their way into and out of the ring, sometimes breaking the circle but never breaking contact with at least one of the others, who pulls them back in. It is the most perfect visual representation of dialogue and conversation – individuals connecting through communication and empathy. Understanding is not static – it shifts and comes in and out of focus like the dancers entering and leaving the circle. It requires a commitment to continue the dance.

The scene that followed was jarring by comparison: the circle breaks apart and the others form a semi-circle around Khakpour. Their movements become robotic and inhuman as they appear to shoot Khakpour as he writhes on the floor, telegraphing injury with each shot. Violence begins where dialogue fails. It is impossible for me to divorce Khakpour’s ethnic identity as an Iranian-Canadian from reading this scene. It becomes a non-verbal commentary on Islamophobia, reminding us that seeing people of Arab or Muslim backgrounds as threats and scapegoats for our fears harms our targets most acutely, but also robs us of our own humanity and ability to connect.

Not all of Dialogue’s vignettes touched me – the spoken word segments broke the spell a little – but overall, I was moved by the choreography and the sincerity of the performances. The focus on individualism allowed this all-male dance company to explore a broad and nuanced sense of masculinity using pathos, humour, and sexuality. Ralph Escamillan’s work on this front was especially notable  – his high heeled tango to Leonard Cohen was a breathtakingly sensual finale, a piece that seemed a little disconnected from what came before it unless one reads it as an unabashed acceptance and expression of this dancer’s identity. Then it suggests that we need to come to an understanding of ourselves before we can engage in dialogue seeking the understanding of others.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Dialogue – Wen Wei Dance, May 25, 2017

  1. Hi Melissa

    It’s so interesting how individuals interpret and experience dance and movement. My take on the segment where Arash Khakpour’s “mask” was removed by the group was entirely different from your own. I enjoyed reading your perspective.

    – Gayle

    Liked by 1 person

    • That is exactly what I was thinking when I read yours too, Gayle! I actually wish we had read up more on audience reception theory in this class. It’s one of those things that does my head in when I start thinking about it. On the one hand, I love that different people can experience a piece of art in completely different ways. It’s brilliant that we bring in parts of ourselves and experiences to our perceptions and interpretations of art – like it’s speaking to each of us individually and our interaction with it supplies some of the meaning. There’s something really beautiful about seeing the spectator as participant in art, the magic coming from the interaction of audience and art. I think you’re right that dance in particular is ripe for this because it is non-verbal, inarticulate – emotion conveyed through motion. On the other hand, I wonder what audience reception means for art as communication. Where do the artist’s intentions come into play? What were they intending to communicate? Does that matter more or as much as what the audience takes away? Can art communicate to us a collective message or is it only talking to us as individuals? And isn’t art just one method of human communication so don’t these ideas of interpretation, and meaning and intention apply to all methods of communication? In which case, if we can hit upon an agreed upon meaning for a word, can we do the same for a work of art? How do we get there? Do we even want to when it will always be imperfect?

      And then my brain spirals out of control…. 😉

      Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s