The Rite of Spring

My first semester in college I took a music class—I think it was Intro to Music Lit, one of those courses for music majors that you were supposed to take before your main music history classes—in which, at some point half-way through the semester, we watched a video of part of The Rite of Spring. 

The Rite of Spring, or Le sacre du printemps, is a ballet with music by Igor Stravinsky.

And Vaslav Nijinsky

choreographed the original production for the Ballets Russes in Paris in 1913. Both the music and the choreography were considered outrageous and nearly caused a riot by the audience.

It was definitely “pushing the envelope” in its day.

The score is now considered a major work of early 20th century “classical” music.

Well, when I watched this video in that class, just a little over 20 years ago, it wasn’t “outrageous”, but to me it seemed quite new and a little shocking. There was some nudity.

(AHHH! Naked people! AHHH!)

There was a solo dance in which the female soloist sort of danced her dress off. I didn’t know the piece then. I didn’t know that it is often performed with nudity. I was just surprised by the fact that her dress was falling down and she didn’t stop dancing, and no one stopped her to tell her. I thought at first that perhaps it was just one of those live performance accidents, but it eventually became quite clear to me that she couldn’t not be aware of this situation.

I don’t remember what the class discussion involved after we watched the video. So I don’t recall if the nudity was even brought up.

I have occasionally looked for that version, but I haven’t found it yet. I don’t recall any names—the dancers or company involved.

(None of these are from that version.)

Thinking about it now, I find it shockingly ridiculous that I found it surprising and shocking and had never seen any artistic performance before then which included nudity. And I can’t imagine I was the only one in the class who had that same level of ignorance or, if you’ll pardon the pun, that lack of exposure.

We still find nudity shocking today—at least nudity that doesn’t fit into certain acceptable or expected categories. Naked babies are fine. Nakedness in pornography is pretty-much a “given”. Nakedness in (some) cable TV and movies is okay as long as it’s set up right: a love scene or a shower scene or if it’s done for comedic effect. But it must be “pointed to” in a sense; it must be filmed in such a way as to bring it to our attention and played for the most titillation possible.

(BLECH! We suck.)

Ya know folks, artists are entertainers. Yes, we sometimes present nice, fun, sweet, pretty, socially non-problematic work which is extremely unlikely to offend anyone. 

BUT!!! We also are instigators, commentators, instructors, and many other things ending with “-ors”. Sometimes we present challenging, uncomfortable, ugly, shocking, surprising work that you very well may find offensive or may not even fully understand. If you’re shocked or surprised or offended, then you should ask yourself why.

What is being presented here that I find problematic in whatever way?
What is the author or creator of this work trying to do?
Should I be offended? Am I supposed to be upset about some external thing?
Or perhaps should I be re-examining myself and my assumptions about art and life?

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

Well...

If you’re still with me... 

This turned into more of a rant than I expected. I’m quite certain I know why that is. Most likely I shall share that here sometime soon.