I really don’t have a problem with Ms. “Say yes to the dress” using her husband’s name and connections to get the kind of art she likes and work she does known. It is a field rarely given the credit it is due, the rank and file generally wanting more commercial, escapist entertainment. My college varsity soccer coach said to me once “the people you know can get you where you want to be, but is what you know that will keep you there.” The quote is two fold–first, don’t envy the people who have connections–they won’t be able to hold onto what they have if they cannot eventually show they deserve to be there. But also, don’t be afraid to take advantage when assistance is offered–realize it for the gift it is, and show how you deserve to be there.
And there is my problem. Because while I find the idea of a disintegrating dress quite interesting, it meant production wise there was nothing available for anything else. In this sense, it seems very much her style, as really all we have seen of her is a woman willing to spend way too much for a dress of limited potential for use.
Here, the dress appeared to be the only true prop, overpowering the message and the singer. Anyone who has actually seen it could correct me, but it looks like the singer had limited range of motion and it sounds like as she turned and sang the dress disintegrated around her…much like how the poison would have destroyed the inside of Phaedra. Interesting for a longer piece, but doing it this way meant it was all about the dress…
From a production standpoint, I can only imagine how much the material and chemicals to corrode as well as what would have had to be on the singer to keep them off her would cost…it seems lot to dish out for a dress that can only be used one night. To me this conceptually sounds better as a filmed production. On stage it is a very large cost and reset for a 15 minute production. It sounds interesting but entirely impractical…even more so as the articles make it sound like there is a desire to bring the show elsewhere–including Paris. It does not appear this woman understands what it means to work within a budget…based on what we’ve seen and the lack of projects for years prior to this recent lush run of potential work…
I respectfully disagree and here’s why. I’m all for networking and self-promotion provided it isn’t as someone else’s expense and it’s done tastefully. In this case SH is boosting her profile at the expense of people who are a lot more talented and capable than she will ever be. She is indirectly pushing aside RP, AS etc. and putting down BC in one bought article after another. It’s so blatant that more than one psychologist must have pulled their DSM off the shelf after reading that unctuous tripe.
About the dress? It’s an interesting concept but one that is far from being ‘revolutionary’. How much do you want to bet that it wasn’t even SH’s idea, at least not entirely? The particular dress designer that they used is also a modern artist who is known for that type of work. Focusing that much on a single prop is far too reductionistic considering the piece that is being performed. I can see it as an ‘avant-garde’ installation more than anything. It’s certainly not worth all the press it’s been getting.