The intrepid Jim Demetre has posted a review of each and every single night of The A.W.A.R.D. Show! on ArtDish. Thoughts on all the performers, the format of the event, post-show conversations and more are included. The article starts out:

As a sometime dance critic, I frequently find my opinions wildly at odds with those of individuals talking in the lobby after the show, writing reviews in the paper the next day, or posting on blogs waiting for me when I get home later that night. I often wonder whether everyone but me was completely tuned out or if I’m just hopelessly out of sync with reality. Facing the critical response after seeing a dance performance can leave me feeling alienated and confused.

Read the full review.

Earlier this month dance maven Ohad Naharin issued some advice to dance critics in an award acceptance speech. Since there was so much conversation during The A.W.A.R.D. Show! about the critical voice and lens, it seemed worth it to repost some of it here:

• Go see dance shows that you don’t have to write about.

• Don’t let a point of reference prevent you from having a moment of a fresh new experience.

• Connect to physical pleasures of life.

• Remember that there are always people in the audience who are at least as smart as you are (and it says here, “especially if you are from England”).

The full list can be found on Dance Magazine’s site.

[Tip of the hat to Dancing Perfectly Free for pointing this out.]

3 after parties at the Sitting Room
10 utilikilt costumes
12 companies/choreographers
24 amazing volunteers (thanks all!)
24 bottles of champagne for Sunday night’s toast
24 hours of tech time
48 performers on the stage
1,200+ attendees
$12,000 given away

Thanks again to all the choreographers, performers and designers for all your hard work! And to The Joyce Theater, Neta Pulvermacher and The Boeing Company for helping bring this to Seattle!

Here’s what some local publications have written so far:

Slog:

The whole point of The A.W.A.R.D. Show! is to bring in new audience members. It worked, despite—or maybe because of—the debate about whether the reality show/Final Four competition was “appropriate.”

The SunBreak interviewed Amelia Reeber (prior to Sunday night)

Jean Lenihan recaps the whole thing on her blog and gets some comments from Deborah Hay about Amelia.

Seattle Dances covers nights 1 and 2.

ETA – Seattle Times covers the final night in: ‘Dreamlife’ wins dream prize: $10,000 at ‘The A.W.A.R.D. Show!’

ETA (again) – The SunBreak and Seattlest have cross-posted a conversation between Jeremy Barker (SunBreak) and Amy Mikel (Seattlest) in which they talk about the larger ideas behind this, the format, etc.

ETA (again x2) – Crosscut discusses nights 2 and 3 and weighs the pros and cons of the format.

By Neta Pulvermacher: A Choreographer, Founder of the A.W.A.R.D Show! Series (2006) and Dance Conversations at the Flea (2003).

Ok… People (artists and audiences), Chill out! I am reading all those comments about the A.W.A.R.D. Show! Let me put my two cents into the discussion…. and, by the way… discussion/response/action/pro-action are actually the goals of this series… So thank you… for participating.

It is Neta Pulvermacher here, the very dumb, super populist choreographer (ha, ha, ha if you only knew) who started this whole thing, with the idea that it may – if handled right – put to test some of the most hypocritical, yet, sacred cows in our improvished modern dance field and if done right – I was hoping that it will in-fact create new possibilities, attract new funding for individual artists, and will put the conversation back into the work itself. That is my dream. I want people to feel excited about the work itself.

No it is not the only way…. No, no, no!!!! There is NEVER ONE WAY TO DO SOMETHING! Never!
(more…)

Amelia Reeber. Congrats to her and to all the amazing and talented participants!

Hello and thank you to everyone who has been participating in this event!! It has been interesting.

There are a couple of things I would like to address:  a response to a comment about the audience being qualified and my thoughts about viewing performance.

I do think that everyone is qualified to assess work and be responsible for their experience. To set a format where that request is made (that the audience gets to make choices qualitatively) illustrates that audiences have been made to feel disempowered.  We all have voices and we don’t need permission to use them.  I think any person in the relationship (creator/audience) of an art experience is innately capable and empowered but different circumstances come into play to make us forget that or lose touch with that.

Related to that is something I would like to pose as something to ponder or use as a tool in the act of viewing work/making judgements.  What if all critics, reviewers, bloggers, audience members, opinion givers, and artists in the audience (this includes me!) first identify what their filters, lenses, expectations, and interests are? Second, make them transparent, then any information that follows about the work is contained or framed by that point of view.

I think this honors the voice of the audience as well as honors the work and the artist.  The “truth” is in the work.  We as creators, performers, and audience, each have our own perspectives of what that truth is, based on our own layers of experience and use of our senses, and each being valid…. there is no one arbiter except for the voice of the work itself, and that too often gets silenced.

Enjoy the last evening and thank you!!!!!!
Amelia Reeber

Audience votes determined that Amelia Reeber will proceed to the final night.

For info or tickets about Sunday night’s final performance, see the performance page.

Michael Upchurch at the Seattle Times recaps Friday night’s performance:

As “The A.W.A.R.D. Show!” continues, it reminds us that Seattle has some stellar dance talent in its midst — more than can possibly be helped out by the $10,000 prize attached to this four-night showcase presented by On the Boards and New York’s Joyce Theater.

Read the full review.

A few initial impressions: it was wonderful to see condensed, diverse representations of the art form, and the diverse – at capacity – audience.

As “come to the show – I’m competing for 10k!” emails increased for 2 weeks, and then experiencing the evening; the suggestion of splitting the prize 12 equal ways was appealing.   Have I lived in Seattle too long? Or is it compassion for the artists’ work?  Or, is it “fuck it – let’s re-write these rules too”.  All things are not equal, and last night I considered the sanctity of art in the context of bald-faced moneyed competition.  I wasn’t the only one. One audience member commented on an example of jazz players competing in a person’s home for a dinner.  Close encounter – immediate pay out.  I can kind of get that.  My challenge last night was that this was not a dance-off where everyone is present together, like breaking or krumping.  Even though the pieces were time limited, with limited tech (that’s not a bad thing), a formality still existed that says Art is happening here.

I listened to my community on and off stage talk about art, money, the commodity of art, the need for money, and the context of the evening.  This was a highlight for me, and the conversation is still going. The big fat pink elephant danced on our financially depressed landscape in clear view last night. (Pretty darn smart Q&A strategy by the way.)

-Laura Curry