sarma

This discussion was part of the colloquium Unfolding the Critical. Marit Strommen is a Norwegian critic. Since the time the conversation was held (Feb. 2003), she has returned to writing freelance. Hooman Sharifi is a Iranian/Norwegian choreographer who presented his performance As if death was your longest sneeze ever on the Amperdans festival, which hosted Saram's colloquium.

Discussion transcribed by Karlien Meganck.

Marit: Here you have a chocolate from the EU, it is disguised as money and it is as a reference to yesterday's performance but I hope we can talk about other things in addition.

Hooman: We just had a talk in the break, about what Arco Renz said: 'Many things have been said, so we must be careful with what we put on stage and what we say.' That is very nice. I question myself in this sense that when I get a call from a producer, I ask myself: ‘Do I have something interesting to say in 2005?’ This brought me to another point. I had a discussion with the culture editor of one of the main newspapers in Norway, called Aftonposten. I asked: ‘When you are not interested in dance – which doesn't seem like he is - why do you use necessary space in the newspaper, which can go to very important things.’ The critic was writing a lot on unnecessary performances, that were 'using up our time'. ‘Why do you use necessary columns on 'unnecessary' performances? Do you just want some dance in there because it is politically correct, because society puts money into dance?’ So, how is it for you to work for newspapers?

M: My situation in newspapers today is one where I produce texts rather quickly. My cultural editor, and the editor make a lot of decisions for me. So I don't make so much decisions myself anymore, about who to write on. Of course to a certain extent, but not all. Before, it was different because I was a freelancer up until last year. It is a very different form of criticism than writing on a day to day basis: you choose to follow a pool of artists, which is what some critics do. They tend to be experts-critics within the field of criticism. They become experts on certain artists. I guess that the critic you mentioned is what artists have to live with, that there are some critics that are writing about everybody, good and bad. And then you get some of those reviews that you probably hate because they don't have the knowledge.

H: I don't want to get into the discussion whether I hate the critic that I get or not. I personally look at it as one person's point of view. Everybody has a point of view and at one point I ask myself whether I need to take people seriously. Sometimes not, sometimes yes. My question was something different. I, as an artist, have a way of structuring my days. I have a surrounding. And I was wondering: what is your surrounding? And of course I am critical towards my surrounding. I have a certain amount of choices as to who I want to have around me and who I don't, what kind of input I want and don't want. So I can choose it in this way. But how is it for you? Two or three years ago in a seminar, you were talking about your deadlines after the shows. I really found that amazing. The show finished at ten thirty. And you had to deliver the critic by twelve or something. By that time it has to be finished and even then maybe somebody changes it. How do you deal with this pressure, with your surrounding, which is a newspaper, the system?

M: I do agree to write on short time because it is the only way I am able to publish. Of course I can write long term texts that I will get published somewhere. But that is not going to make me a living.

H: In order to get published you go with the rules.

M: It’s a very important question, because it has to do with what is critical and whether criticism can be critical when it operates within the economy of the newspaper. And also whether art can be critical when it operates within the economy of the market, the guest performances and the European Festival situation. I think it is very important to look at how much a critic does invest in a piece of criticism. Because it is certainly less than the artist invests in the piece. You use your personal in your work. A critic cannot be as personally involved. Of course you have to show personality and attitude and everything, but you cannot be as deeply involved with each and every artist. Unless you concentrate on certain artists, which some critics do.

H: Are you personal in your writings? I remember we were talking on the phone after the paper came out. I felt like you were saying that your writing wasn't good, but you meant that it didn't come out good for me, like I didn't get a good review.

M: It was the show, I had expected more.

H: I don't invest a lot in one show. I invest for my career or my existence or whatever. You too. You are also investing a lot in your activity. As much as me, I think. You have been investing a lot, you have been to school, …

M: This thing of going to school … it is not necessary for critics to have gone to school. You have to have seen a lot of performances of course. That is the school.

H: Yes but again I was thinking of newspapers. We have a newspaper called Dagbladet. This is one of the most sold newspapers in Norway. On the first pages you have the news of who has been sleeping with who. I was thinking: 'do I have to take a person seriously who has been writing in this setting?'. I did some project that I really liked. One day, after we did a performance in Norway, I went to a café and I gave a review to people who hadn't seen our show. I asked them if they wanted to take their time and read this review and tell me what they would think about it. And I found out how unimportant this review was for these people. This was very nice for me to know. Of course we have a bigger issue. This newspaper has a greater possibility than me to document something. Whatever has been written, it will be a document for the future, which will give a view of the past.

M: I don't think the tabloids that flatter themselves with a dance critic, should be underestimated, because they communicate with so many people. A tabloid can be a good platform.

H: Then we have to discuss the communication because does it communicate because it is reached? Just because I am buying it, does this mean that it is communicating? This was my point by asking people to read this. And it didn't mean anything to them. Of course it reached them, but communicated? This we can discuss.

M: Are you talking about the language of criticism?

H: No, I am talking about newspapers.

M: The newspaper language … whether it communicates in using difficult words or whether …

H: I was just commenting what you said about that we cannot underestimate newspapers, because they are communicating with a wide range of audience. I am just saying that I am not sure whether they are communicating at all.

M: I agree with you. That is a good point. I don't know a solution to this problem. In Norway – I think we can safely say that - criticism does not have such a respected tradition as in this part of the world. People take art less seriously in Norway than here, … wouldn't you say? We would not be in this kind of a room as we are here, would we?

H: When the culture budget is like in Romania, in a country called Norway, one of the richest countries in the world, yes, in this way I guess they don't find it necessary. I can probably say that some people don't find art necessary, but I don't think it is a problem of Norway. I think this discussion exists everywhere: it is necessary or is it luxury?

M: Yes, but I want to know … You think it is necessary. You cut out the reviews, you bring it to the people in the cafés … Where do you find this need to confront all these people? Many artists work isolated. How do you manage to be so curious? Of course we shouldn’t generalize like this, but it is true that there are some people who are more important to talk to in terms of how to build a network. And I think you certainly have a network and you know a lot of the important people in Europe, but you also talk to so many 'not important people'? Where is the motor or the strength?

H: We are interested in what we have done and what we do. I learn a lot by talking and listening to other people. And I can make the piece better.

M: Do you change the piece? I was giving you the chocolate money we had in the house. The messages on the plastic yesterday had changed from the first time that I had seen the performance. Do you listen to the suggestions? How do you incorporate them?

H: Sometimes somebody comes with a point which is interesting to listen to and they don't want to pursue you. Some people want to tell you how you should do this. And then you say stop and you say 'I am sorry, but I am not you'. The discussion stops because then you are just telling me what I should do. Other people tell you how they achieve this. There is this arrogance, that we know and you don't. If this happens in a show, then we have really failed. And then I am searching how could this happen? Maybe the distance? So for me, I can rely on the sentence that comes in. I don't have to change it, because in one way I know this is what I want. This is the show that I want. So if it is received like this, that's a problem.

M: In the beginning the message on the chocolate was very direct, but now it was more metaphorical.

H: It was still direct. I would say a gift from liberty is as direct as a gift from the United States. A gift from free world is still direct. We are still using the media words: free world, freedom, liberty, democracy. We are still working with these issues, but we don't put it on one country.

M: You change things because of other people's input. But have you ever changed things because of a critic's remarks?

H: Not often. When it is in a paper, it is different. When we two sit and talk – in Berlin for example – it was very nice. We had a good discussion, about your point of view from the beginning. And when I read the portrait that came out, for me it was very nice. I could read it. I could go back again. I could see our discussion. But in a review… I don't know. At some point it becomes a person who said something. A person that says something who is in this position because of the context. Normally I don't take this kind of people seriously. I can separate Barbara from her position as chief of wpZimmer. I can stop looking at her as a presenter and see her as a person who has seen so many pieces and talked with so many artists. But in a newspaper it is different. I have a certain meaning about the newspaper, about the way it is written, the position it will get because of it … there are more things around it, which makes it more difficult to handle. But if I talk to you alone, I can change part of my pieces, not because you're a critic. I don't sell my piece. I just think 'how could this thing become better?'.

M: So you are not taking the institution of criticism seriously?

H: I think the organization that we have now is much more interesting.

M: Sarma? Why?

H: Because they are not organized in the sense of a newspaper. I hope I understand this right so I don't make a fool of myself. It is just some people who have written and who are interested to publish themselves. It is like you in Norway. Why should you go to newspapers and say 'publish me'. You can make a site. You can go to the artist and say 'we also want to publish in a right context'. I know I once talked to you about your 'piece of art'. And you said I don't do art.

M: I am not an artist, I said.

H: Yes. So this criticism as written material, look at it as a product or as art or whatever … I hope you care so much about it that you hope you can put it somewhere where you think this is safe to be seen in a way that you want this to be seen. This thing will be protected. I think like that when I go to presenters or people who want to present me. I want this thing that I have done to be presented in a way that it should be.

M: Why should we document so much? Is it the most crucial thing?

H: Your work is based on documentation.

M: Yes, but a lot of these reviews that are published in a daily newspaper, why should they be documented? It is a different thing if it is in a magazine or something. But a daily newspaper, usually people use it for fish or garbage or flowers the next day. Why should we document it?

H: No, when you go back, if you want to find out about something? The Library. The newspaper. Let's say I can go to a newspaper's website and I can write down a word: dance in 2001.

M: But does it matter to anybody outside? I mean, we can reach the people that are already interested but …

H: I think I can make it more clear. I think we are dealing with something called communication.

M: So that you should be held accountable for what you have written in a sense. So it is preserved also for that reason.

H: Of course.

M: What about the relevance of criticism to people who are not in the business?

H: I will not get into this discussion. Because if you or any critic sit in front of me and say they write for the people, I will not sit in the same room with this person. This is my clear point. If a critic or anybody said to me that we want to reach the people that are not in the business … no way!

M: Are you serious?

H: I am so serious that you will not believe it. How could a person say 'I will explain this for the normal people'. If you say 'I will write about your piece so the normal people – who knows who is normal – or people who are not in the business can come to see the piece. How can a person say that? This is not the thing that we are doing here. Come on. We are trying to say, we want to achieve a communication level or we want to understand each other. And somebody comes in and says 'I am going to make this for the people'. This is why art will not be respected in Norway. I am not saying that I am just making this for the intellectual. No, I am making it for the people. We want to communicate. When we are working we are not thinking about it all the time. But we are sitting there day and night, working our ass off, putting our heads in the toilet. Doing whatever to try to explain what we want to explain in a way that we want to explain it.

M: But you have such an important message that I am sure you want to reach as many as you can, don't you?

H: No. I mean, I would love to reach a lot of people, to be playing, but not at any cost. It depends on the cost. … It could happen that playing for 2000 people means that I have to pretend more, because the room is bigger or something. This is what I mean with the cost. Maybe what I am doing is not good for 50 000 people at the time, but for 50 at a time. Is it wrong? Do I have to do it for 50 000 at a time? Is that when I reach people? What about the old-fashioned way of communication where the talk goes like this? This is really a political idea. We had it in Norway and it probably is here too: 'it depends on how many people see it'. You have to have so much audience etcetera…That makes it quality. I think politicians have got it wrong. They are chosen by votes and then they think everything works that way.

M: So you want a situation where people can choose different kinds of performances. And each performance doesn't have to be for everybody.

H: No. every performance is for everybody.

M: Now you're back again. I think I follow you. Because I was going to say, I would want to write for as many as possible or to write dance criticism in understandable words. Not to make it stupid. I think you can simplify a lot of the very difficult words that are in the discourse and that takes people away from this. And I think this is a very sad thing. It is not just because we have a strong tradition of anti-intellectualism in the country where I come from. It is just that I am seeing how many people are missing good performances. And I think criticism doesn't help.

H: But then I think you should write in the newspaper and start the questioning in this institution that you are working in, called newspaper.

M: So what is it you want to know about the critic in the newspaper, Hooman?

H: I am just asking how do you deal with your situation in the institution that you are working in? What about deadlines, the cuttings in your writings…? Are you free to write whatever you want? Newspapers also build on how much they sell.

M: Of course you try to fight it. For example when I wrote about Rosas. The composer, the whole music was cut out of the review. I didn't want to give a big lecture about Steve Reich to the cutter. But the thing was, there were so many things to be published in the paper that day. So it was either or. So of course you try to fight this, but after a while, after you have written a few reviews … you have to pick your battles.

H: How can you ask me to take a review seriously? I take you seriously now, but I cannot take a review seriously because of exactly that.

M: The critic knows this (the cuttings) . If I had been very clever I would have written about Steve Reich in the beginning, but I wrote about the dancers first. It is either or.

Myriam Van Imschoot: I just wanted to know whether you denounce the whole business of journalism and criticism. Or maybe art criticism is something else than journalism?

H: I am not cutting down all the journalism, I am just saying that it is a situation that we all have to deal with.

MVI: You mean the false arguments?

H: Yes. 'You have to sell, you have to be this, you have to be that…' This is a fight that everybody is having now. I take my work so seriously that I don't want anybody not to take it seriously. But I think there are lots of magazines today who try to work against that.

M: But I think it is not always the most efficient thing to do, to walk away when you are disappointed in the way your work is treated. You can also work it from within. I would hope you take the reviews seriously. I am not so sure about general articles, interviews with the artists or results of press conferences, … you don't have so much your heart in those. A critic is really your own standpoint and most of the time it is not cut. And it is really seriously meant from my part so I would hope you take it seriously too.

H: You say that sometimes walking away is not the way. I agree with that. To stand there and to deal with it: of course. But I come back to my question: how do you deal with your surroundings? What is your strategy, your way of working? You feel you deal with this organization called newspaper. You presented it as a 'within'. That you can change within. What is your strategy to deal with it from within?

M: It has to do with fighting for space and fighting for pictures. Because a lot of the time dance reviews are presented without a picture. And I think that's sad. But on a more basic level it has to do with trying to sell a story to the editor’s desk. To try to convince them that you have something important to say.

H: How do you convince them?

M: Usually I don't have much time to convince them, so I choose the one thing that I really believe in. Then I want that to be 2 pages and pictures. I try to sell that story. But I don't do that with every piece of text of course. It is impossible. You don't have the time.

Myriam Van Imschoot: Just one remark: One of the reasons why Sarma was very appealing to me as an idea is that it gave me a tool to take revenge of the situation that you are criticizing in the newspaper. I was very often very unlucky when my articles were ruined. I feel that the possibility to republish my writing is a way to say: 'This is how I wrote it.' It is the author's cut like you have the director's cut. And I hope that other critics will use it as the same tool of getting back control on their articles. Although I wouldn't say that I have too much phantasies about internet and cyberspace either. I am very aware of that also. But on this immediate level, I feel this gives me an opportunity that I didn't have at that time. This is a practical answer to your question.
A second remark is that I saw your performance yesterday and I start understanding something in your discourse and in your practice. It is overall a big suspicion about democratic institutions or so called democratic organizations. So the political democracy. But also a newspaper which is very often historically intertwined with ideologies of democracy. 'For all the people.' And you also extend it to the debates on public participation which is very often driven by political remarks. I see all these things coming back and I see more clearly why maybe you have a problem with newspapers. Although I would say it is a very complex matter and I don't have any other solution. But I do feel like all these things connect.

Caroline Bauwens: You talked about selling the article. Are you talking of selling your article as being a good writer or as an objective resume of the performance itself?

M: There is a difference between selling a good piece of art and a good piece of text. I think it is the art, if it has really convinced me, because the text is not that valuable if you write fast.

CB: But isn't that always the objective? Because as a critic you can break an artist immediately.

M: That is the situation. Some people think it can do that. He (Hooman) doesn't take criticism seriously. Baervoets was saying he didn't either. Many artists are reserved towards the criticism. I am not sure if the critic can really break an artist. But I know there have been made such claims.

CB: But the critic writes for the public and it is the same public that comes to see the performance. A bad critic can make the people not come to the performance.

M: Definitely. You see a certain substance and you want the people to go there. It is subjective. It is impossible to be objective there. It is an important issue. Because the structures of dance in Norway are very vulnerable. There are a lot of independent companies and they have almost no money. A lot of people are asking themselves whether the critic should use the same approach when the network is so vulnerable. Should an independent dance performance be treated in the same way as a national theatre performance? Sometimes that happens. You have very harsh reviews towards very vulnerable companies. I am not sure if that is right.