she was cuffed to the truth

Posted by Wheelchair Dancer

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WheelchairDancer/~3/cF6ZbrTrE0Q/disability-arts-and-culture-i-doing-it.html

When a New York Times music critic is as interested in how Mr. Levine controls his wheelchair as he is in the performance the conductor created, you know there is trouble afoot.  Here's the piece: it's a review of Mr. Levine's return to conducting the Met Orchestra at Carnegie Hall.

Like Mr. Tommasini, the critic, I also want to engage the question of whether Mr. Levine did a good job as a conductor.  But I see the criteria differently.  I like to ask questions such as: Does Mr. Levine bring out a performance that moves you?  Does the orchestra soften and yield under his baton?  Does the music that emanates from the musicians take root inside you and flourish?  What is his interpretation like?  How does it fit with/break from tradition?  Was the orchestra well-balanced?  Are the musicians playing well?  If I can answer yes to these and other similar questions, then I can say that he is doing a good job.  I do not know how much that has to do with Mr. Levine's use of a wheelchair and how much not.  It seems that the New York Times most certainly does, however.  And while they know this much, they do not know how to talk about the fact of a disabled conductor.

First, there's the bad language.  Mr. Levine did not enter the auditorium, he "cruised" onto the stage in his wheelchair and the audience stood to give him an ovation -- because the only ovation that matters is standing.  The false dichotomies are apparent from the very beginning.  Much is made of the special platform from which he conducts, how it blends with Carnegie Hall style -- because accessibility is ugly, right?  And we can't have ugly at Carnegie Hall. [One might wish that such care had been taken in providing seats for disabled audience members, but perhaps that one might be being unnecessarily bitter....]

It turns out that the reviewer decides that Mr. Levine is back -- perhaps not back as Music Director (Mr. Levine's official title, as we are reminded) -- but he has returned as a conductor.  The music is "serene, poised, and glowing."  It's music on a par with the art Mr. Levin has created before his injuries.  Fabulous.  Finally.  But after this three word assessment, more time is spent on Mr. Levine's medical history -- surgery, injury, shoulder, back.  All this complexity, for Mr. Tommasini, makes Mr. Levine a conductor with "something to prove."  Mr. Tommasini concludes that we should delay speculation on Mr. Levine's future and instead "bask in [Mr. Levine's] musical glory."

But does Mr. Levine's medical history and physical situation mean that he has to demonstrate again his value as a conductor?  It's a long and complicated question, but tackling it helps us get to the core of the disability arts and culture movement.  Addressing it helps us understand why and how disabled artists can take their well-earned places in the pantheon of admired art-makers.  Mr. Levine's physicality may be one thing, but I believe that his skills as a conductor are not necessarily tied to the state of his body -- no matter how inseparable the NYT would have us believe the two are.  Mr. Tommasini treats us to the following paragraph:

He [Mr. Levine] looked physically up to the task. He showed flexibility in his upper body, as he has described in recent interviews.  He seemed comfortable waving his arms and giving emphatic cues.  Mr. Levine was actually bouncing around on the chair, smiling at the musicians, sometimes singing the music audibly and looking altogether unrestrained.

Mr. Tommasini assesses Mr. Levine's ability to conduct by attempting to read his body.  There's flexibility and range of motion.  There's no visible presence of pain; indeed, Mr. Levine seems to be enjoying himself.  This freedom is soon ended; once the piece is over, Mr. Levine is unable to turn his chair easily (to take a bow), and two musicians rise from their seats in evident concern.  These two vignettes are telling: They inform us about Mr. Levine's skill, capacity as a conductor and reveal something about his comfort in his chair.  More importantly, they help us see what is important to the reviewer.  For Mr. Levine's success to be complete, he has to be able to erase any sign of difficulty and be able to perform as he did before.

This is something of a fallacy.  What does it take to draw music out of an orchestra?  Do we have to define or experience conducting as "waving" of the arms?  What does it mean to conduct anyway?

I would like to begin by positing that conducting does not have to come from the arms.  Mr. Levine has to be able to communicate with the orchestra, yes, but he does not have to move his arms to do so.  From over fifteen years of orchestral experience at a variety of levels, I know that some of the most rewarding and scary moments come from eye contact, a raised eyebrow, a twitch of the mouth.  Indeed, some of the most intimate communication between musician and conductor is invisible to the audience  -- in large part because it is not created by the arm.  So, why do we persist in making the arm the sign of efficient conducting?

I am tired of writing pieces that deconstruct the ignorance and ableism in the New York Times and, in general, in a wide variety of review pieces.  (In a different venue, I had a nasty little series called #hownottowriteaboutdance.)  I'm not getting anywhere; let me try something different.

What if Mr. Levine stopped trying to accommodate his body to the expected way of conducting, i.e., with his arms?  What might he find?  A sound?  A bounce?  A jiggle?  A glance?  A movement of head or chair?  A twist or turn?  How electrifying would it be to play under a conductor who was not in pain and was not at risk of hurting their body in an attempt to appear normal?  Then, there's that moment of infelicitous chair movement.  What if instead of trying to accommodate Mr. Levine's chair, the good people at Carnegie Hall made space for Mr. Levine's whole body and created room for a potential new style of conducting?  Would there be new architecture?  Better integration?  A more powerful connection between orchestra and conductor?  Communication is about the conductor -- the body and the person -- but it is also about the specifics of situation and environment.  It is both societal and individual.  The movement of the arms is an outward manifestation of the art, but it is not the whole or even the most significant part.

Mr. Levine is a powerful and amazing conductor.  He has the presence and track record to change how we experience conducting as an art form.  I make no assumptions about why he has not prioritized or presented himself as a disabled artist; it is enough that he returned to the podium in his chair.  My ire is reserved for those who make it impossible for the art to rise from the body as it is, in its complete forms -- chair, assistive technologies, diverse communication patterns and styles.  These are the people who stifle artistic ingenuity and progress.

Working in this whole, integrated way is what it means to be part of the disability arts and culture movement; being able to work in this way is why the movement is so necessary.  "Properly" in my title does not and should not mean doing it the way it always has been done.  "Properly" means doing it.  With the art of body and mind, exactly as they are.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WheelchairDancer/~3/cF6ZbrTrE0Q/disability-arts-and-culture-i-doing-it.html