[Tango-L] A criticism of the criticism of "TANGO: The Art History of Love...

[Tom Stermitz]

I read 3/4 of Thompson's book before giving up in frustration. Is he  
a journalist, a protagonist or an independent semiotician?

That there is African influence in tango is without question. And,  
many of Thompson's photos and documentation are very, very  
interesting. But, in the end Thompson overdoes things. He heaps so  
much information on us that everything just ends up in a pile.  
Inevitably, some of his data is just wrong. If some is wrong, how do  
I trust the rest of it?

I finally stopped reading in a section where he conflates musicians  
and dancers from the 1910s, 1920s and 1940s in a way that doesn't  
make sense (i.e. it was incorrect).

One other example of sloppy journalism: Thompson talks extensively  
about Facundo & Kelly without ever mentioning Facundo's N. American  
heritage (through his father). Why? Because it would be an  
uncomfortable distraction from the African-Argentine-tango line?

And, truly, what does Dizzy Gillespie have to do with Tango. Are we  
all groovin' together because we're musicians, because Jazz is  
universal or because we're black? Or, possibly that was a time period  
when the doors of Argentine nationalism were being opened to N.  
American influences after being closed from the 30s to 55. (World  
depression; Peronism; militiary coup...)

There was american jazz in Buenos Aires, specifically the New Orleans  
traditional sound from the late 20s, but no big band swing. When I  
visited in the mid-1990s the milongas would have sets of "jazz", no  
sets of swing (lindy), and then sets of Elvis & Chuck Berry.  
Following Thompson's stone soup recipe, I guess the Black influence  
on Elvis leads somehow to validating African influences on  
milongueros of the 1950s...

Huh??? I mean to me that is just false analogy.


Other examples of sloppy historical observations:

Thompson traces african postures used in tango via grainy drawings of  
black-argentines. To deconstruct Thompson, how do we separate HIS  
interpretation from the ARTIST's caricature and figure out what the  
SUBJECTS were really doing.

Early in the book, the Thompson the semiotician traces moorish  
influences in tile treatments. That is a example of a symbol that  
carries through history, but just because you see diagonal squares in  
walls doesn't prove the lineage. A , good researcher would need a  
constellation of associated symbols to prove the point.

To be fair, one example that convinces me is the depiction of a  
carnival parade, because in that case Thompson identifies a  
combination of symbols characteristic of the parade and follows them  
through a historical time-line.




On Apr 25, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Christopher L. Everett wrote:

> Bill King wrote:
>
>> I am sorry; I  think many are missing the point or points.
>> 1. Thompson's  book is good and enlightening, and not the least  
>> thought
>> provoking, but he has a  clear agenda,
>>
> I suppose you could also say he has a clear agenda, but he also an
> art historian specializing in the impact of African culture on Europe
> and the Americas, and he provides the referenced to back up his
> assertions.   I'm not sure that he could have written the book any
> differently given his source materials.
>
>> and he has a tendency to overemphasis the
>> African  contributions by under playing the local Argentine and  
>> European
>> contributions.
>>

>
>> Because  Dizzy
>> Gillespie plays in BsAs in 1956 doesn't, in my mind, equate to a  
>> continued  black
>> legacy of tango but rather that of a great musician from a  
>> different  musical
>> world crossing over to another compatible genre, like Getz and  
>> the  Samba.
>>
>>
> This is true insofar as it goes, the Dizzy/Fresedo collaboration is a
> major stretch, especially since tango was dying on the vine in '56
> under the triple threat onslaught of military governments, rock
> music and television.
>
>
> Christopher