I haven't seen the show, but I have read both pieces and it does appear that KT might be reacting to a history of reviews rather than just this one. Again, "might" be....can't say, but I hope so because this is touching on melodrama.

She's right.

You should think about hiring her to write for the Stranger. She seems smarter than the rest of you.

I wanted to read her review, but fell asleep halfway through. She can keep her day job.

Person creates thing, thinks thing is best thing. Ticked off when someone does not think thing is best thing. Clearly other person does not understand thing.

A critic shouldn't recommend an event just because the artists put in a lot of effort.

I suppose I can see both sides of this issue. Ms. Niehoff wants people who are more embedded in the world she's part of to write about dance from an insider's perspective. Sounds like a great idea. But I fear that firing off at the few local writers who bother to cover dance because they don't take from it what you do as a working artist might not be the most constructive way to win over outsiders to your point of view.

Not happy about the state of writing about dance in Seattle? Start a blog. Better yet, get a whole group of people together and start a network of blogs or one big one. (If it's good, the more established outlets will read it, link to it, and maybe even learn from it!) This is what a bunch of visual artists and independent art writers did a few years ago, and as a result we now have a much broader range of opinions and insights to draw from than the two professional art critics in town could ever provide on their own.

(It's a cliché, but in this case you actually can be the change you want to see!)

That said, I'm looking forward to seeing this show. I've heard good things from friends.

Just because artists are "awesomely talented", put in "lots of hours", and "risk going deeply into their psyches" does not mean that the piece was good or effective. I've seen a lot of contemporary dance in my time that may have been the result of all of these things, but didn't engage me. Guess what? It's not my job to make your art interesting, thought-provoking, and compelling...that's your job as an artist. If you can't do that don't blame the reviewers for your failure.

In the Venn diagram of Stranger Readers and dance enthusiasts, I imagine the tiny sliver of dance enthusiasts is almost completely inside the larger Stranger Readers category. But most Stranger readers don't give a shit about dance. That is why they don't give much space to it, crams 3 reviews into one, doesn't give MFA thesis-level critique of it, etc.

The Stranger simply isn't the place for the kind of criticism that Ms. Niehoff wants. There isn't the readership to support it. A blog would best serve the niche of dance enthusiasts looking for extended, intelligent criticism.

It's a freaking newspaper. You should be thankful they even publish weekly arts listings at all given how newspapers are cutting back on arts not made by Michael Bay.

There are publications that provide an informed, thoughtful critique of new work, but they aren't published every week on newsprint for free.

Your expectations and your demands are wildly out of synch with reality. It's difficult to engage my sympathy when you're yelling at the dog for barking.

@10 You hit it strait on.

You who are flippantly dismising her letter fail to see the years of anguish, week of thought, and 15 minutes of typing she actually put into it.

Choreographer/Writer...look at the film section. I mean, really. Charles writes about tits and ass regardless of what the movie is about. Lindy loves everything fecal. Every once in a blue moon, there will be a column with content that isn't flippant. And Seattle also has a local film scene! Omg, what?!

If you wanted a more in depth review, maybe you shouldn't have scheduled to be on the same weekend as 4 other dance shows! Be thankful they covered you with anything resembling detail or respect. Lord knows it's more than they give a lot of other sections.

P.S. Dance is not pop music or news. If you hadn't noticed, those two topics have the largest sections and are the bread and butter of the weekly. Next time, start a band going live at Neumo's. They may give you the same space for a review.

For those of you who are wondering about the vehemence of KT's words- yes, this is in response to more than just one review and to more than just a few unfavorable comments.

And, this is not the first impassioned response to dismissive dance reviews from The Stranger.

KT is actually speaking for many in the dance community.

Perhaps the dance community would not need to be such a fringe aspect of this city's vibrant arts scene if more engaged discussion (such as this!) were happening more regularly in the world beyond the dance community.

And, excuse me "TheMisanthrope", but who wants to hear so much about another band?

@19 If this is Engaged discussion about a topic, you need to come out of your artist's bubble. This is bitchy criticism (commenters) about whiny criticism (this piece of...um...writing?) about shallow (is-it-even-)criticism (original review). I think when you get three levels deep with a shaky base, we're in mind-numbing territory.

And, finally, I think that the answer to the question "who wants to hear so much about another local band?" is "the majority of The Strangers' readership."

I understand why Ms. Niehoff is ticked off at a flippant, amateur review, but I'd hazard a guess that most of The Stranger's reading audience is fairly ignorant and causal about dance as well. Therefore, a review from one of their own is more likely to resonate - and influence them to actually go see a show - than one that cites works and artists and vocabulary they've never heard of. If I want to know the artist's influences, I look to the program notes.

I imagine that most people who are steeped in the history and vocabulary of dance are already connected to the local dance community and inclined to go see dance performances, so deep reviews in a newspaper probably have limited value to that audience.

I definitely understand why Niehoff is upset, but as someone who doesn't even read The Stranger's dance coverage, and isn't interested/invested in the local dance community, I find it unfortunate that my introduction to Niehoff and her work is through this review of a review. Gutter-glam actually sounds kind of cool to me. If I ever see her name again, I'll probably remember her as the woman who didn't like The Stranger's reviews, and not as a talented choreographer.

KT it sounds like all of your dancers (and others involved) suck, They put in all that time and energy and can't seem to convey any of it to the audience. Fail buddy.

To be fair, "twirls and spins... frolicking like actual forbears Deborah Hay, DV8, and 33 Fainting Spells, to say nothing of the Seattle dancers who have helped define her acutely 21st-century work Maureen Whiting, Rob Kitsos, Vanessa DeWolf, and Kris Wheeler" makes for a much more elegant sentence.

dang.

Modern dance bores the tits off me.

I haven't seen Ms. Niehoff's work, but I've observed the broken relationship between dancemakers and media outlets my entire life. This column and its comment thread are the tip of a mammoth iceberg which, if I were foolish enough to summarize it, might include the following points:

Many dancemakers do not hold themselves to rigorous self-assessment in process.

Although becoming more common these days, at least here in Chicago, it's still rare that a dancemaker's process includes an "audience advocate," or even an occasional eye on what the casual observer may experience while viewing the work.

When the dance audience grows, which is the hollered wish of everyone in the dance community, it grows by one casual observer at a time. When this happens, there is simultaneous growth in the value of, and in incentive for publications to provide, informed dance writing.

Many who write about dance, both occasionally and as a career, are woefully unqualified to do so, especially in the U.S. There simply isn't a high standard…or much of a standard at all. Niehoff is correct in comparing "twirls and spins" to "musical notes." Dance has history and vocabulary. Paid critical writing on all other arts rarely condones a comparable lack of qualifications. Still, editors are justified in minimizing the usage of impenetrable jargon in writing aimed at the general public — the general public that's full of all those people who love dance, but just don't know it yet.

The best way to bridge this chasm — through which the possibility of movement art at the table of cultural discourse plummets — is for the writer, whether educated in dance or not, to watch closely and with an openness to the wild and spectacular variety of things that the dance may intend to communicate, then use his or her most creative employment of language to put the experience into words.

Mr. Kiley's review was certainly not the worst I've read (nor was it really that negative, Ms. Niehoff) but, like so many dance "reviews" in American publications, it was essentially a summary of observations. What irks dancemakers about critics is that they seldom open themselves to a visceral, unmediated response to what they're seeing or, if they do, they don't write about it. And dancemakers can be tediously indulgent and themselves grossly uneducated about other art forms.

Zachary Whittenburg
Dance Editor, Time Out Chicago
Dancer, Pacific Northwest Ballet, 1998–2001

Damn. It's pretty wonderful to know we have dancers as outspoken and vibrant as K.T., willing to get into the ring with the reviewer and ask for a little more. Indeed, K.T. is responding to many years of simple reviews by many simple reviewers, but hey you've got to start somewhere. This letter could have gone to any of the authors of any of the reviews. We're tired (yes I'm an artist too) of hearing about how "I didn't get it and incomprehensible." We're asking the reviewer to do a little work, stretch their muscles a bit, maybe even try to determine the intention of the piece is so they can challenge their readers to do the same. Simply put, take a goddam better good look at your artists!! They deserve more from you. K.T. is doing some of the most daring and challenging work in the NW. To retort that we should all be thrilled that you're writing about us at all is pretty weak. Sounds like the courts giving a birth child to its drunken mother. Hire someone like Vanessa DeWolf, renowned local artist and once director of the artist-feedback Field|Seattle, to write your arts reviews and you'll quickly educate your readers how to witness and get the most out of art, be it dance or visual or anything you can muster.

Dance doesn't have a dedicated writer in The Stranger. It doesn't have a dedicated Dance section. The few times a year that the Stranger deigns to review dance work, it's jammed into the Theater section and reviewed by a Theater artist.

Are Dance and Theater the same thing? No, they're not. They just both happen on a stage and involve costumes.

When Dance isn't given its due reportage, of course most of the readership of The Stranger "doesn't give a shit about it". They don't even know it's happening, or that it might be really great and affect them on a deep level. Or that it might suck. THAT'S WHAT THE NEWSPAPER IS HERE FOR. To let us know about it. The Stranger is not doing its job.

That's all KT is arguing. Throw us a bone, Stranger! There's a world class dance scene emerging in Seattle, but we need your help!

"Doc, it hurts when I do this."
"Then stop doing that."

Lets face it- The Stranger is pretty limited, and especially when it comes to dance, you have zero chance of getting an informed review. So let go of that. Yeah, it's a shame there isn't better arts reviewing going on here, but this ain't New York. Stop trying to get a 4 star meal at a Denny's.

You may be jealous that there is alot more writing done on the theater scene in The Stranger, but the likelihood that something is going to be viewed favorably seems to depend on how many beers the participants have had with Kiley, so I don't know that the theater scene benefits more from the 'attention'.

Bitch bitch bitch, whine whine whine. Boo hoo, someone doesn't like the thingie I made, I'm gonna cry all over everything.

Grow up!

There are no well-written or thoughtful reviews (or reviewers) at the Stranger. The Stranger built its reputation being smug and self-important, and actually has had arts editors who encouraged slamming local work.

The Stranger has no real interest in reviewing the arts. They pretty much only care about the music scene. They should acknowledge that and change their branding, stop trying to pretend.

The Stranger doesn't understand the importance of enlightening contemporary audiences and promoting the arts. They can throw "Genius" awards around all they want, but those awards generally go to non-geniuses, non-groundshakers, non-avant-garde and fairly predictable artists.

"This isn't New York", but the artists who live here have every right to expect intelligent and thoughtful reviews and reviewers from a newspaper that tries to claim expertise. Sure, artists in various disciplines can "go start a blog", but the thing is... they're ARTISTS who are busy doing their ART... maybe some blogger can go spend all day blogging, but dancers are busy dancing and theater artists are busy rehearsing and painters are busy painting.

The Stranger sucks and that's why I don't read it anymore. I think all artists who get reviews should refuse to comp in Stranger reviewers.

i don't read 'the stranger anymore either...
...wait... where am i ? ...ummmm ...how did i get here ?.. where's my piece of chicken ?

...i don't read the stranger anymore either.
..wait.. where am i ?..ummm how did i get HERE? ...where's my piece of chicken ?

...huh ?... whaat ?

Got the link to this thread via a friend, and opted to read it. But, I did give up on The Stranger giving a shit about art a long time ago.

It's telling that there are 46 comments here, but not a single one in response to Kiley's actual review. People love a brouhaha, but aren't particularly interested in reading about dance.

For what it's worth, Niehoff is right that Kiley wasted a paragraph talking about scheduling (that's neither interesting nor pertinent; pretty much any weekend theater and music events compete and no one complains about that), but other than that, Kiley's review wasn't particularly flippant or sarcastic. Yes, he's not well-versed in contemporary dance (and neither is his audience), but he was watching with an open mind and was more positive than not. His review increased my interest in seeing both Reeber's and Niehoff's work.

I know nothing about dance, and don't attend, and thus would never try to write about it. But her point is valid. Either The Stranger should find a real dance reviewer, one who can offer more than the simplistic, sarcastic wisecracks of a theater reviewer, or not bother at all.

No, you don't have to like the work just because an artist put a lot of work into it. But you should show enough respect for the art and artists to do more than just dash off a few thoughtless witticisms and call it a review.

Second paragraph, "I am weary of the quip, sarcastic comments... blah, blah, blah."

Quip? WTF? Last I checked, quip is a noun, not an adjective. Is that a typo? If not, get a dictionary, or use words that you actually know how to use.

Next up, get a fuckin' sense of humor.

The continual mocking of the "stranger voice" is ignorant and pointless. Yes the the Stranger has a "voice" that can seem sensational but often times it is the one voice in town that is provocative, interesting and goes beyond lip service. I actual believe that the reviewers at the stranger are incredibly invested in the communities that they are reviewing. Often times there reviews can actually pull at the core of the thing being reviewed. Maybe this review of these four pieces was not that due to lack of space but, as has been pointed out many times, the reviews were not bad...just short.

Brendan Kiley has proven over and over that he is committed and interested in challenging the theater community. He has invested a lot of his life in Seattle to seeing various forms of theater arts. He has invested significant time in the dance community as well. He has made a point of seeing more dance over the years to be able to have an opinion and an interest in the form. Brendan is an advocate for the theatrical form in this city and he is personally invested in it's future. Allowing this rant is yet another example of his attempts to empower the artists to do something and clarify there voice.

Jen Graves is constantly advocating for visual art. She organizes events and asks tough questions and is willing to state her opinion. She writes about visual art work and participates with it. She and the stranger seem to work hard to empower the dialogue around visual art. We may not always agree with the opinions but it hard to argue that the stranger reviewers are just being flippant.

These "reviewers" are invested participants in the forms they review.
The dialogue in this city is actually strong. It could continue to grow stronger, of course. But a lot of that responsibility lies with the artists as well.

Enough with the complaining and blaming. Look around and take advantage of the fact that these reviewers actually care.

joonbug says "The dialogue in this city is actually strong. It could continue to grow stronger, of course. But a lot of that responsibility lies with the artists as well.

Enough with the complaining and blaming. Look around and take advantage of the fact that these reviewers actually care."

This is the kind of weak attitude that plagues Seattle. We're nice. Be grateful. No. The dialogue could be stronger but that's up to the artists? What do you think the artists are doing in this thread? They are speaking up. Who wrote the original response? An artist. You can't say - don't complain, be grateful they even care. And then in the next breath say - it's your fault there isn't more dialogue. But don't complain. I cry "buhh-ll-shit."

And, believe me, the reviewers don't actually care. They really don't. If they did care, they might sometimes interview the folks who are creating, they might find out what the genesis of a project is, where the artist (of any medium) thinks it took them or will take the audience. They might briefly interview other audience members on the way out - or at intermission. The events that get reviewed consist of more meat than one person's (the fresh out of college reviewer's) surface glance will reveal.

@37: Shows what you know! Brendan Kiley doesn't drink beer. He only drinks dancers' blood.

The artist,

It couldn't be more annoying to name your self "The Artist" and then come on here and act like you are the voice of the artist. Critics are critiquing the thing they observed not waiting to hear justification from so called artist for why they spent the time they did on their "art."

If you had an interview it would be an artist profile or a preview not a critique of the work.

Again I stand behind the actions of the Stranger's Staff who do go out and spend time in the fields that they critic. If you read all of their articles ,and not just the ones that don't give you the kudos you think you deserve, you might notice that they are invested in the community.

You say you gave up on the stranger a long time ago. So where do you go to find critic. Or do you just look to others to placate your pathetic attempts at being an "artist." Tell me you go to the Weekly or the Times. Both bastions of placating the artist and telling you everything you do is great and wonderful and hey "you seattle" go see this stuff.

Critic is about challenging you. Clearly "the Artist" feels that to have made to choice to be an artist means that you should be recognized for all the great contributions you make to our society even if society might not need them. The critics job is to help society try and weed through these things and find the gems and the ones that do work to change the way we think and understand our world.

But critics fail as much as artists do. They aren't always right and I would say that (at least Brendan) they know that and our conscious of their own failings. Thus one of the reasons that Brendan let KT have free reign with her own article. It is unfortunate that she failed in her attempt.

And to add to that I never said "be grateful" they even bother to review us. I said recognize that they actually do care and take advantage of that.

Complaint is not dialogue. What I am saying is that if you want to contribute to a stronger artistic community you should understand and see the whole picture and not just complain. You should engage in a meaningful manner and recognize that we are all interested in a stronger environment of art and art practice. To get there one has to recognize that everything you do is not special and everyone will not see it the same.

You can call "buhh-ll-shit" on something I actually said as opposed to something you said I said.

If “The Stranger simply isn’t the place for the kind for criticism that Ms. Niehoff wants,” why do I get that impression from Jen Graves that it is? Graves, who seems to care a lot about Seattle making better art, gives me the impression that that kind of “extended, intelligent criticism” can and does happen here.

I’m seeing an inconsistency between what The Stranger calls for in Art and what it calls for in Dance. Upon visiting the site, I was surprised to not find a Dance section, as I thought maybe the reason I didn’t find dance every week in the paper was that it rotated with theater or something. But no… it’s really not there.

The Stranger is missing an opportunity to up its standards. If dance coverage is “a national problem,” why not Seattle lead the way? Are there these publications that review dance that make it unnecessary for them to be included in The Stranger? I’d love to know them! (@11: I’m trying! honestmovement.tumblr.com/post/thisisafo…;.)

Because The Stranger is the easy-access voice of art in the city, it makes no sense to me why that should be the reason for setting standards low—in fact, shouldn’t that be the reason to set standards high? The people that don’t care will not care if there is good stuff written and the people that do care will get really excited! To cater to the first category would be ridiculous.

A good review of dance wouldn’t have to contain praise, “vocabulary the audience has never heard of,” or “the artist’s influences.” Of course the general readership would be turned off by descriptions of fouettes and modified open fifths (so am I). But I think The Stranger would do a better job of advertising for dance (supposedly is its job? At least is it with music) were it to talk about movement—what is unique to dance—instead of reducing it to music and costumes, an off-breed of theater. (The closest Kiley gets to interesting talk about movement in “Allergic to Stiffness” is when he lets Amy O’Neal speak for herself, and she talks about warming up.) Bringing dance only to the standards of theater, of course it will fall short.

I wonder if the “majority of The Stranger's readership” who picks up the newspaper (if, in fact that is the majority of The Stranger’s readership of the actual articles. Per this conversation, it doesn’t seem like it) would be more interested in reading how Amelia Reeber’s movement was like an office chair suspended with one wheel touching the floor, turning over and back in on itself, (what I thought of the last section of this is a forgery) than that she was “frolicking like a Greek nymph.” Or, perhaps focusing the unbearably fast movements of her fingers instead of what she’s wearing (for the fourth time).

Sure, give the show an honest review (admittedly hard to do in two paragraphs, and no, Kiley’s review of Glimmer, though I haven’t seen it, was not that bad) but it didn’t take the opportunity to focus on the movement, (what the dance is made of, after all). I only see this continuing to reduce the art form that’s already lumped in the theater section, and doesn’t have regular dance reviews in a city which, according to discussion at The Vancouver Problem panel, is known, if anything, for its dance.

If Kiley is going to continue covering dance for The Stranger, I mainly suggest he start looking at the movement of the piece, “open himself up to a visceral, unmediated response to what he’s seeing” so that the audience might have the hope of doing the same, and go from there. If not, I’d be happy to do it.

Graves herself called for better art criticism in Seattle, and I don’t see how that can stop at dance. I’m glad this conversation is happening. Thanks, Stranger, for letting KT (and dance) speak, and let’s hear way more of it. I’ll wait for “Seattle’s Only Newspaper” to first make a Dance tab and then put it on the same level as the Theater one (like The Times) and I’ll wait for more interesting movement reviews from both. I’ll also be busy writing my own, so as not to be a hypocrite.

[I’m going to see crushed, part of SCUBA on Saturday. Brendan, let’s see it, and talk!]

The most important letter you received this year. Your paper has been suffering from ignorance for far too long. While I appreciate that you probably don't pay your staff all that well, at least not as much as they should be getting paid, like KT I expect you to do your jobs and do it well. I'll continue to hold you to a higher standard than you seem to hold yourselves to.In the meantime I'll just assume you're a bunch of hacks.