Do TV dance shows add to live dance audiences?

October 6, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

This weekend, both Dance Kaleidoscope and Gregory Hancock Dance Theatre offer their season-opening programs (at the IRT and the Tarkington, respectively). In addition, Campania Flamenca Jose Porcel will be performing at the Palladium on the 12th.

Are you going to any or all?

Whether you are or aren't, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the impact of such hit shows as "So You Think You Can Dance?" and "Dancing with the Stars" on live dance The obvious assumption is that seeing more dance on TV should inspire more people to experience dance live.

But is that the case?

Do people still stay away, assuming they can't see that quality on local stages? Is dance something most people would prefer seeing on TV instead of live? Or are there other barriers keeping potential ticket-buyers from taking the leap?

If they do go, I'm curious about how the expectations created by these flashy programs impact appreciation for the more subtle, lengthier work locally. Can--and should--our dancers live up to the three-minute choreographed blasts offered just about every night on TV?

Whether you are a dance or a patron, a choreographer or someone considering a first visit to live dance, chime in below with your thoughts.

Your thoughts?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • thought from a lay person
    JaclynOctober 6, 2011 1:27 PM
    I don't think that they should try to live up to the shows on TV. Both formats - TV and live - should be taken as they are and appreciated for what they are worth. I would watch a TV show and appreciate how I can see a few minutes of a visually impressive dance from the comfort of my home. On the other hand, I would also go to a live performance and appreciate a more in-depth experience for all my senses...and the lack of judges giving out grades. By trying to make every live performance the same experience as a TV you are doing a disservice to those in attendance. They would never get the opportunity to appreciate the differences and benefits only a live performance can offer.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • thoughts from a dancer/choreographer
      b.h.October 6, 2011 3:07 PM
      Live art (dance) in Indy compared to other markets has always had a tough time pulling patrons into the theatres. World renowned and flashy productions struggle, even the SYTYCD live shows struggle on tour, and they are the very same show that has such a following nation wide (myself included). There is INCREDIBLE talent in Indy, and DK and GHDT have been very fortunate to keep the spirit of dance alive in the city. They produce amazing work and have grueling hours of rehearsals in preparation for the end product. But it's tough to get people to committ to attend that aren't maybe involved in the arts or long time lovers of dance; most of the GP (general public) don't understand what their watching and sometimes it can be too deep for a non-dancer...at times its even too deep for the avid dancer (ha).
      we all are aware of the camera angles and shots tv uses...they tend to make things appear more dynamic (even for the most amazing choreography and dancers) than maybe it is in real life. And while the athletes rarely have a less than stellar performances, the TV aspect can add to, but also take away from the quality. I find it hard at times to watch some of the routines on tv because I want to see, as a whole, what is happening as opposed to a side view of the stage or one person. I, as a dancer and choreographer, always hope that the attention our art has gained because of these shows will be more of a drive to get people in the actual seats, and their kids in our studios. The students expanding to the studios is working...and I am confident that its just a matter of time before the seats are filled with excitement for the REAL DEAL! But no matter, we will keep creating and dancing! live, love, dance!
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
      • i hate typos
        b.h.October 6, 2011 3:11 PM
        most of the GP (general public) don't understand what *theyre* watching

        haha :)
        Reply to CommentFlag Comment
      • :)
        b.h.October 6, 2011 3:15 PM
        agree completely jaclyn!
        Reply to CommentFlag Comment

      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.

      ADVANCED SEARCH
      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

      2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

      3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

      4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

      5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

      ADVERTISEMENT