The article that was chosen for consideration in the following reflection is “On Your Fingertips: Writing Dance Criticism,” which was written by Banes (1994). It is possible to note that the given narrative represents a vast array of thoughtful considerations regarding the aspects of creating the criticism of dance performances. The author suggests that it is crucial to pay due regard to four key components of composing relevant and thoughtful critical reviews of dance. First of all, it is essential to completely describe the actual work that was done by the dancers during their performance. The second element of impeccable criticisms is related to the creation of interpretation. It means that the author of the review needs to interpret the characteristics of the dance and reflect on the ideas that could be communicated by the performers.
The next essential component of an excellent review of the dancing performance refers to the creation of evaluation. In this case, it is apparent that a person who composes a review needs to assess the quality of the performance, its aesthetic characteristics, and influence on the audience. Yet, according to Banes (1994), the most crucial aspect of the process of criticizing the dancing performances is critical operation. The author holds that it has the role of a contextual explanation that is based on the assessment of the aesthetical and historical roots of the work (Banes, 1994, p.25). In this case, it is hard to deny that the process of critical evaluation of the dance presupposes a combination of various analytical tools that play an important role in this context, making the agenda of reviewing indeed multifaceted.
Throughout the entire narrative, the author attaches special meaning to the problematics of evaluation of the dance and the performers. The considerations of Banes (1994) allow the readers to understand that the cumulative share of description holds only a superficial value in the process of reviewing since it represents solely the judgment of the external characteristics of the performance. At the same time, the article suggests that it is essential to incorporate the elements such as comparisons and contrasts in the review (Banes, 1994, p.26) to create the more profound description of the dance that forms the favorable basis for its transformation in the mode of evaluation. Referring to the scope of the evaluation, the author also makes it clear that it is crucial to assess not only the performance but also the aspects of choreography.
Yet, from the considerations of Banes (1994), one can comprehend that evaluation needs to be supported with interpretation because the author denominates it as a “pure” example of critical operation (p.27). Only with the help of thoughtful interpretation, it is possible to reach the in-depth level of a critical analysis of the dancing performance. The author even holds that the process of interpretation is closely linked to the concept of hermeneutics which means that it needs to take the form of an insightful evaluation of the denotations and connotations of the dozens of elements of the dance. Accordingly, it is possible to come to the conclusion that to construct a relevant critical review of the dancing performance, it is essential to avoid the unilateral approach in the process of writing since both description and evaluation cannot perform their roles independently, serving only as the basis for a thoughtful and considerate interpretation of the essence of the dance.
Overall, it is evident that the author of the given narrative conducts profound research to outline the different interpretation of the matter. Yet, the reflections of Banes (1994) regarding the argumentation of various critics only highlights the importance of the incorporation of critical judgment in the process of evaluation and interpretation of the dance so that the review of the performance would strive to objectivity, at the same time respecting the concepts of cultural relativism.