No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Critical Evaluation in the Choreography Class
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 July 2014
Extract
Choreography classes are structured in a way that places intrinsic value on peer criticism, or the evaluation by students of the works their colleagues present in class. For this reason, a choreography course may be conceived of (as writing courses often are) as a “revisions process” course. But while choreography teachers already devote class time to soliciting students' critical evaluation of each other's dances, approaches to training students in this activity, as documented in the literature on the teaching and learning of choreography, are neither consistent nor intellectually rigorous. The literature concerns itself primarily with the practice of producing dance studies: exploring and making creative choices about movement and structure in the dance.
A number of writers do acknowledge and articulate the importance of teaching students to develop a sharp critical eye.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Congress on Research in Dance 1992
References
REFERENCES
Beardsley, Monroe C.The Possibility of Criticism. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Blom, Lynne Anne, and Chaplin, L. Tarin. The Intimate Act of Choreography. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ecker, David W., ed. Qualitative Evaluation in the Arts. Proceedings of the First Summer Institute on Qualitative Evaluation in the Arts. New York: New York University Division of Arts and Arts Education, 1980.Google Scholar
Ecker, David W., and Kaelin, Eugene F. “The Limits of Aesthetic Inquiry: A Guide to Educational Research” in Thomas, Lawrence G., ed. Philosophical Redirection of Educational Research: The Seventy-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1972:258–286.Google Scholar
Feldman, Edmund B.Varieties of Visual Experience. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
Hanstein, Penelope. “On the Nature of Art Making in Dance: An Artistic Process Skills Model”. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1986.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Alma. Creating Through Dance. Revised edition. Princeton: Princeton Book Company, 1988.Google Scholar
Hayes, Elizabeth R.Dance Composition and Production. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1955.Google Scholar
Hoover, David, ed. Handbook for Instructors 1991. Expository Writing Program. New York University Department of English.Google Scholar
Horst, Louis, and Russell, Carroll. Modern Dance Forms. San Francisco: Impulse Publications, 1961.Google Scholar
Ihde, Don. Experimental Phenomenology. New York: State University of New York Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Kaelin, Eugene F.An Aesthetics for Art Educators. New York: Teachers College Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Lavender, Larry. “Observation and Criticism in the Choreography Class: Moving beyond ‘I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like’”. Focus on Dance XII: Dance in Higher Education. Oliver, Wendy, ed. AAHPERD Publications, 1992:101–106.Google Scholar
Lippincott, Gertrude. “The Function of the Teacher in Modern Dance Composition”. Journal of Health and Physical Education 16.9 (1954): 497.Google Scholar
Perkins, David. “Talk About Art” in Madeja, Stanley S., ed. Arts and Aesthetics: An Agenda for the Future. St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc., 1977:279–304.Google Scholar
Smith, Jaqueline M.Dance Composition—A Practical Guide for Teachers. Surrey: Lepus Books, 1976.Google Scholar
Spielgelberg, Herbert. Doing Phenomenology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Margery J.New Dance: Approaches to Nonliteral Choreography. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. K. Jr., and Beardsley, Monroe C. “The Affective Fallacy”. Sewanee Review 57 (1949):31–55.Google Scholar