>>Dans un courrier daté du 18/09/01 17:23:49, richard@halfangel.org.uk a >>écrit : >> >><<The list of nominees may not be representative of gender or of the >>field, but it's the nominations we received over a one month call >>that was widely distributed. Jeff wrote: >Perhaps the goal should be to look at people as individuals, >rather than gender labels. Male/female is a very narrow definition >of gender in any case, and is only one label. Are any Asian artists >represented? >What, in other words, are we trying to represent? Is it even possible? It's interesting that the issue of gender followed by cultural representation is surfacing at this crucial moment. I don't think the list of nominees meant to be representative of the dancetech field but that's how it comes up to be understood. But, lets face it, we are not talking about dance but dancetech and as so the ratio is completely representative of the field in my opinion. I actually thought that we all were aware of this expected and unsurprised tendency. If we look around, unless some exceptions, we see that most collaborations are made of couples where, roughly, men compute and women dance, to don't say major collaborations such as Riverbed with Cunningham and Bill T. Jones, composed mainly of men. It's impossible to change things over night, thus I think to ask for a complacency or artificial correction to the under representation of women is actually working to continue weakning their position. I'm fine with the list, and inclusively realize that when you choose five people there's always the possibility of having a women's majority board as there are 4 women among the 12 nominees. Best, Isabel ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Isabel Valverde Department of Dance History and Theory University of California, Riverside
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02