CCorps Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 If you want to go back and re-read all the threads and postings where the behaviors of Gaga, Cyrus, Marylyn Manson, Madonna, as well as the historical Dada movement and Beat movement ‘performance artists’, were praised by many here on DCP please do so. There you will find the names, or screen names, of the apologists. You will also find postings by me within the context of trying to find sarcastic humor in the modern progression of ‘performance art’. But as I stated in this thread, I have now moved from sarcastic humor over to fed-up frustration, and quickly moving into what’s the use. He's almost there! Keep pushing! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCorps Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 True in that Boston’s ‘Core’ did not utilize actual sex, and also true that the BD show did not go far into presenting real Dada. But the celebration of temptation of sex and the celebration of what occurred at the real Cabaret Voltaire were presented in a positive light. All of which points to show concept designs moving into the direction of celebrating the gutter instead of rejoicing the heavens; and it is being implemented, and accepted, slowly within the realm of DCI in an incremental manner. ...really? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) There have been many discussions concerning DCI, and the activity itself, should not stagnate but actually be at the forefront of what our culture is celebrating as Performance Art. Well here is the performance art direction our culture has seen fit to progress toward: enjoy y’all, enjoy (link). And for all of you DCI and WGI designers out there who are in the camp of 'progress not stagnate', please, by all means, please place this wonderful progression of our culture, and it's performance art, within DCI and WGI programs in the near future. On the flip side, I bet Lady Gaga shows make FAR more revenue than DCI's summer tour (spoiler: I know they do). For those that use the "DCI needs to be more popular to appeal to its fans instead of artsy and esoteric," there are few examples more populist than Lady Gaga. As for the puke thing, that is illegal via DCI rules: no use of liquids (such as the colored milk used for that effect) allowed. Edited March 17, 2014 by perc2100 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 True in that Boston’s ‘Core’ did not utilize actual sex, and also true that the BD show did not go far into presenting real Dada. But the celebration of temptation of sex and the celebration of what occurred at the real Cabaret Voltaire were presented in a positive light. All of which points to show concept designs moving into the direction of celebrating the gutter instead of rejoicing the heavens; and it is being implemented, and accepted, slowly within the realm of DCI in an incremental manner. I missed the most important one-drop rule example. Reading the paragraph above it's clear that Stu has decided that the Cabaret Voltaire was essentially a disgusting thing because some of the performers used the freedom there to do disgusting things. Stu is saying that portraying the Cabaret Voltaire in a positive light is masking the real essence of Cabaret Voltaire which is that it was depravity. One drop of depravity = essentially depraved thing. We all go to the bathroom, but are we essentially toilet people? Do historians miss the essential nature of being human by leaving out that part? By not summarizing human nature as excretory? It is not at all true that the Cabaret Voltaire was essentially a place where artists performed disgusting art. I wish I could go back in time and attend those events. It would be so worth putting up with a few offensive jerks in order to experience that pivotal moment in art history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 I missed the most important one-drop rule example. Reading the paragraph above it's clear that Stu has decided that the Cabaret Voltaire was essentially a disgusting thing because some of the performers used the freedom there to do disgusting things. Stu is saying that portraying the Cabaret Voltaire in a positive light is masking the real essence of Cabaret Voltaire which is that it was depravity. One drop of depravity = essentially depraved thing. We all go to the bathroom, but are we essentially toilet people? Do historians miss the essential nature of being human by leaving out that part? By not summarizing human nature as excretory? It is not at all true that the Cabaret Voltaire was essentially a place where artists performed disgusting art. I wish I could go back in time and attend those events. It would be so worth putting up with a few offensive jerks in order to experience that pivotal moment in art history. This is not a one-drop issue because many things can be cited about Gaga other than just the vomit, and many, many artists can be cited within her same level of performance presentation. Moreover, what was allowed to be presented on stage at Cabaret Voltaire, and other Dada venues, would more than likely make the Gaga blush; her antics are pale in comparison to many of the things done on those stages (if we discussed the actual behavior that was being exhibited on the Dada stages we would get booted from DCP). And I am sure that there are forms of marriage counseling going on at the Bunny Ranch, just like there were some forms of non-offensive art being performed at the Cabaret Voltaire. But that does not mean they are not/were not still engaging in depravity; again, it just means they are comfortable in accepting the depravity as perceived righteousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 On the flip side, I bet Lady Gaga shows make FAR more revenue than DCI's summer tour (spoiler: I know they do). Ok, degenerate behaviors by performers bring in lots of revenue; they always have, and they always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 As for the puke thing, that is illegal via DCI rules: no use of liquids (such as the colored milk used for that effect) allowed. The banning of liquids was not an artistic decision but a liability decision. The cost of cleaning up, or fixing, a damaged professional stadium turf over-road the artistic value of the liquid. I guarantee you that if there was no liability issues there would be way, way more things allowed in DCI performances in the name of artistic progression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 The banning of liquids was not an artistic decision but a liability decision. The cost of cleaning up, or fixing, a damaged professional stadium turf over-road the artistic value of the liquid. I guarantee you that if there was no liability issues there would be way, way more things allowed in DCI performances in the name of artistic progression. But the liability issues won't ever go away (and safety was a HUGE part of that liability, not just the financial) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 But the liability issues won't ever go away (and safety was a HUGE part of that liability, not just the financial) Point being is that it was a liability decision not an artistic decision. If DCI ever gets enough revenue stream to cover the huge increase in insurance premiums I suspect the rules would be changed to accommodate any and all artistic endeavors. The idea of a DCI corps extravaganza combining all of the elaborate elements of Madonna, Michael Jackson, ZZ Top, Lady Gaga, Kiss, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, the Fire, the Smoke, the Video, the Props, all combined are most certainly a dream for many if not most designers in DCI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Point being is that it was a liability decision not an artistic decision. If DCI ever gets enough revenue stream to cover the huge increase in insurance premiums I suspect the rules would be changed to accommodate any and all artistic endeavors. The idea of a DCI corps extravaganza combining all of the elaborate elements of Madonna, Michael Jackson, ZZ Top, Lady Gaga, Kiss, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, the Fire, the Smoke, the Video, the Props, all combined are most certainly a dream for many if not most designers in DCI. Wow, that is bold, broad strokes. I assume you've talked to many DCI designers to get that opinion? I don't see much of that in marching band or WGI circuits (maybe some of the light show stuff) now so I suspect most designers in that world are OK pushing the limits a bit of current status quo. You mention insurance as a liability (both financial and health), but to implement all of that is a HUGE expense. Les Etoiles had the gravity-defying thing a season or two, but most corps didn't even mess around with that route after Les Etoiles showed how popular it was because of the logistical nightmares of hauling that stuff around. Even lighting rigs that bands and WGI groups have used in the recent seasons are EXTREMELY difficult to coordinate, with effects that may or may not be rewarding on the sheets (along with the effects not working = show is ruined and your score will likely tank). If you're saying designers' ultimate goals for the drum corps activity are elaborate, Disney-esque, pop-rock stadium show extravaganzas, I think that's an interesting stipulation & I'd be really interested in knowing specifically which of the many designers have explicitly said that sort of thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts