In reading today’s New York Times Arts Section, I had a weird sense of deja vu while reading Claudia LaRocco’s review of Luciana Achugar’s The Sublime is Us at Dance Theater Workshop. I just couldn’t shake the feeling that I had already read about it in same paper.

After a quick cup of coffee and a few minutes of watching AS Roma get pummeled by Udinese, I decided to time travel take a quick gander at Saturday’s paper and there it was, a quick and dirty four-column review of the same piece by Roslyn Sulcas.

Claudia La Rocco and Rosyln Sulcas en route to Dance Theater Workshop

Now, one could really get technical and note that the La Rocco review was first published online on Friday, as was the Sulcas piece, and that the Sunday arts section arrives on Saturday, and that the lightning storm Saturday evening would, in fact, provide the 1.21 gigawatts necessary to power my flux capacitor.

Kidding aside, we’re torn between wondering if the section editor wasn’t doing their job, and appreciating the two different perspectives of the work and the artist (the Sulcas piece is more review, the La Rocco piece more Bob Costas biopic). Whether or not the double review was intentional, we do get a chance to question how experimental work should be treated by the major media, particularly when such works may survive past the live performance window and be seen by wider audiences on TenduTV.

Tagged with: claudia la rocco , claudia larocco , dance , dance theater workshop , experiment , luciana achugar , new york times , roslyn sulcas