Maida Withers Day 1 and Day 2 Blog - Dance USA Conference "Crossing Borders"

[Maida Withers]

Dance USA “Crossing Borders” Conference was held in Washington, DC at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Arlington,
Virginia (suburb of Washington, DC) June 16
-19, 2010. The following comments are written by Maida Withers and submitted to Dance Tech-net blog, June 18, 2010

Day One (Wednesday): The opening night.

Maida Withers Dance Construction Company performed a site specific work, Collision Course, for the opening gala for the Dance USA Conference, Crossing Borders, at the House of Sweden on the Potomac
River, Washington, DC. The dancers, Anthony Gongora, Giselle Ruzany,
and Nate Bond wore pillows secured on various parts of their body with
packaging tape. Many free pillows were
scattered on the lawn. Dancers proceeded
up the grassy knoll to press themselves along the full-wall glass windows of
the beautiful House of Sweden.
Conference participants were inside the building watching as the dancers
pressed their bodies like graffiti along the glass wall. Dancers proceeded to dance freely once they
moved off the glass wall and tumbled down the grassy knoll. The dance concluded with dancers diving onto
pillows as they were thrown into the air and crashing to the ground. Collision Course is a site dance that takes
on different aspects based on intention and location. Jane Franklin and Daniel Burkholders groups
also performed.

The food was excellent and the company for the gala very nice and diverse with people from all parts of the USA and abroad. Several
artists/managers were there from Ireland.

Day Two (Thursday):

Attendees broke up into discussion groups/forums in the morning. I attended the session with Artistic Directors with budgets under $300K.
It was a very diverse group from directors who had no staff positions to
organizations with budgets over one million dollars. Each member stated what concern they had at
this time. The group leader directed us,
then, in our discussion to issues suggested: staffing, boards, touring, and many other management issues related to
survival. It was a productive meeting
with a somewhat limited agenda that seemed to center on management values
primarily. The larger budgets seemed to
be related to schools connected to the Companies or education programs. Compared to the 1960s there seems to be a
great deal of money available to the dance companies (beyond tickets at the
gate) such as $30,000 or more from cities or county arts agencies, etc. Several commented on the challenge to
maintain artistic focus on the dance works in this survival process of
diversification. Dancers always have a good time when they get together....certainly that was true in this case.

It was my pleasure to attend two session on International aspects of dance today.

During the first session, Frank Hodsoll, chaired a committee with cultural representatives from Japan, UK, Mexico,
and the USA. Each panelist presented the governmental/non
governmental approach to international exchange. As a USA
citizen/artist who is mostly interested in international culture exchange, I am hopeful that there will be some development in cultural
diplomacy supported by the US Government/Embassies soon.
With the demise of the USIA the USA
continues to struggle with a systematic way of engaging American artists
abroad. More direct discussion of
particular programs (Cultural Envoy, etc). will take place on Friday at the
conference.

The second international session raised the question of the view of American (United States, actually) dance from abroad. There was a panel led the Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts
International Programs with panelists from Mexico,
Germany, and Spain. The topic is a worthy one but also a
challenge. Mexico
spoke about the extensive influence of Limon, Sokolow and others in Mexico. Mexico
has a formalized international program with four regions where a company is
able to apply to tour there. Spain
and Germany
indicated the recent lack of interest in dance in the USA
and the inability to bring companies/dancers from the USA
(costs/aesthetics). The United States is
a long way away when European countries are so close. However, in Europe it seemed there is also about a lack of interest
in what American (United States) dance is doing, it appeared to me. In addition, if the U.S. Embassies do not
support American artists, there is not much chance of selection in Europe. One audience member indicated “the elephant
in the room” was the rude treatment that many American artists receive when
they are in Europe.
Some agreed that this was present for them as well. I thought the conversation in total was too
oriented toward Europe/U.S. exchange and not global enough. Also, I feel the idea of an individual
creating new/original work in a democratic process that is free of governmental
control has been embraced globally.
Perhaps this means there is not a “dominant” nation in modern or
post-modern dance at this time. Why
should there be? I recognize this is a
somewhat “democratic” perspective, but if there is a U.S. value,
individual freedom of expression in dance with no government intervention would
be expected. There were many different
voices heard in the brief one and one-half hour discussion. What was lacking was a two-way perspective of
how dancers and governments are viewing each other. There was an edge of volatility in the topic I felt.

I am unable to attend the next two day sessions, but there are more discussions/presentations planned with international focus.

The Dance USA Conference was successful in my opinion for day one and day two. There was a great deal of opportunity for people to express opinion and to learn and broaden perspectives. Congratulations to Dance USA staff and local artists who donated time and energy to receive guest to our
city. I look forward to reading others blogs covering the final two days.

Maida Withers

Maida Withers Dance Construction Company

Professor, The George Washington University