Get thee to Dance Kaleidoscope

March 27, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Normally, I would wait until the next print edition of IBJ to review an A&E offering. But sometimes, that's too late and I'm thankful for this forum to share what I've seen.

Having experienced Dance Kaleidoscope’s “America, the Modern” last night, I’m going to take advantage of the blog bully pulpit and strongly encourage you to get to any of the remaining three performances.

I’m not doing this out of a desire to help DK. As consistently strong as the company is—and as vital to the Indy arts scene as it is—such reasoning would put me on dangerous ground. As soon as a critic starts recommending work because it’s good for the organization, then esthetic judgment starts heading for the window.

And I’m not pushing you to go because tickets have been reduced to $20—and day-of-show tickets Sunday are an absurdly low $10. We also have to be careful about comments being strongly influenced by cost. After all, what's very affordable to some is a barrier to others.

No, I’m urging you to go because, in a town of knee-jerk standing ovations, I can't recall one being as enthusiastically offered--by me and the rest of last night's half-full crowd at the IRT.

I'm taking this initiative because, if you are a newcomer, you are very likely to become a fan of contemporary dance before the first piece, Cynthia Pratt’s stunning “Dreams, Converging” is through.

I’m saying it because David Hochoy’s “iconoGlass” is the best showcase I’ve yet seen for the grace, style and personality of his very strong company of dancers. There's no forced narrative. No ego or hierarchical attitude from the dancers. Just enormously satisfying, compelling movement set to music.

And I'm commenting early because the entire program is impeccably staged (okay, except for one very unfortunate costume choice--but what's a DK show without at least one awkward wardrobe element?).

I see one of the key elements of my job here as encouraging excellence. And, when I find it, encouraging you to experience it.

So go.

And I look forward to reading your thoughts here or on my You-review-it Monday post.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT