In the last 20 years or so, Greek dance has not only been trying to experience what was -prematurely named- its "Spring-time" and "rebirth", but to also survive through opposing ideologies and ideas, primarily focusing on: "how to save art", "how to make art (dance) profitable", "how to export art (dance)".
Centres of political power, guessing that this might be a field of power interplay, joined in with no knowledge and yet via actions and decrees; furthermore in no consistent way, blending traditional political practices (clientele, favoring this or that group et.c.) with sparse innovations (for Greece) like upgrading of certain institutions, inauguration of practices as seen abroad et.c.).
Meanwhile, in the real "battleground" that has been and still is, real life and art, there appeared "art-saving" ideologies or ideologemmes emerging from various sources outdated or not: hellenism, visions of balletic regeneration/rebirth, the French example, the British example the New York example and so on. There have been opposing suggestions as to how to: upgrade education, change education, re-create education; and,what should "new" education attain/aim at; plus whom and why subsidies should be given to and many more, not necessarily cumulatively or in that order, or very well and clearly articulated, and mostly as an interplay between sub-groups and state power.
One might say, well that's not unusual or unheard of, especially in unsettled neo-post-colonial circumstances. However, in the unsettled battleground of ideologies, one issue that rarely was addressed and remains unresolved concerns professional ethics. This is not meant to be a moralistic approach, au contraire, what is at stake when ethical conduct does not form part of the agenda of a certain group (which does interfere in the formation of strategies, and has a strong public profile -for all sorts of reasons), then a danger of possible manipulation of weaker sub-groups may arise, and/or the use of such groups for promoting a very personal -but hidden agenda.
It is out of the question for the writer of this article as well as for many dance practitioners (with whom many random discussions but also interviews have been conducted), to have critics -for example, one acting powerful professional group, who on the one hand report and comment on performances and on the other hand work for and promote the work of one or more dance groups. This creates confusion, uncertainty within the artistic community and does not help at all to promote clear strategies. Everyone thinks that "nothing can be done," "nothing changes in terms of ethics", "that everyone helps out their friends and if you play fair you are a sucker, big time". It is depressing in the long-term and has a negative effect in the morale of the community, while it affects its motivation towards problem solving and self-respect.
"Mixed practices", as we might call the above mentioned attitude (as well as others of similar/analogous nature) more mildly, further help to sustain a certain tendency to dependence: upon power structures, wherever these come from and regardless to whom they are affiliated with, and/or groups that may be in power. They also disincline people/artists from standing up for their rights (payments, insurance et.c.) because they believe "that the game is set and we are used as pawns in it". They also believe that they should not talk or express their disagreement "because "they" form a powerful structure and we shall be out of business", while if they synchronize their "pace" to the "irrational", proto-institutional structures, they "might get a job, or other help, because life is difficult and (we) do not want to play heroes". This although they believe that "in the long run, it is better to stick to one's guns", but "at the moment of choice, friends who have joined such groups and other sources of pressure, that is family,others professionals, tend to control [our] decisions".
Therefore, very often, arts communities, dance as is the case here, tend to acquire a profile and move according to the ideology of the power structure that has the closest link to institutional authorities/academia/the Press and so on thus imposing its will. It may offer work or promises via a circle of docile "bodies", exhibiting a possibility of stability and power that in reality is saved for its close circle of affiliates, in a Mafia-like way of functioning.
The community assimilates claims of agendas that might otherwise not have been its own. For example, while education may be important, a dominant group's agenda may claim better conditions in exporting art/dance. It is seductive, it is necessary, but it may be unattainable at a given moment (-while a different set of decisions may resolve this very problem0. Nonetheless no strategy in regard to real needs and consistent strategies may be studied and agreed upon, as the pace to power of a specific power structure/group is in need of the "talk" about "exporting Greek dance", because it is the stepping-stone to another (hidden) target in its agenda.
Therefore, attention should be paid to practices that not only do not help promote Greek dance, for example, but underline alienation and show the crudest face of power imposed upon artistic communities. If we can already talk about the abstract structure and function of power, a form that should be conceived as close to forms of violence (manipulation, dependence marginalization and abuse through poverty and exclusion if not direct threats), then dance in Greece moved quickly to its stagnation and its stripping of regenerating powers much too early. Like a long winter without -a much awaited for- Spring.
No comments:
Post a Comment