Talk:Edward Morgan (choreographer)

Poster

Mr. Morgan is not a "modern dance" choreographer, so it is incorrect that the word modern is used to describe his work. His background and work is in the classical idiom, even when done in a contemporary or modern style! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josfxander (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This poster of Edward Morgan's choreography precisely illustrates the article Edward Morgan (choreographer); no other poster would do, as it was intended when created in 2010 to show the nature of his choreography which is the subject of the article. The use of a published poster relevant to a Wikipedia article is considered fair usage. In this case it directly exemplifies Morgan's skill in choreography, which is something practical, not verbal. If dance could be fully or even adequately grasped in words, dance and choreography would be redundant and nobody would practice them or bother to watch it, feel passionately about it, or spend money and time on it: but thousands of people do, when it is good enough, as it certainly is in Morgan's case. Therefore it is not possible to replace the poster with words, and the article is less clear without it, per NFCC#8. The poster directly serves a useful purpose in increasing readers' understanding of the article, and indeed "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" as the guideline says.

I'm tempted to cite an author who really understood this topic, lest there be any doubt about the difference between dance and dialogue:

``I should like balls infinitely better, she replied, ``if they were carried on in a different manner; but there is something insufferably tedious in the usual process of such a meeting. It would surely be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing made the order of the day.

``Much more rational, my dear Caroline, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball.

— Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 11

In short, we should keep the poster. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of how excellent an illustration the poster is, it depicts the work of an active choreographer whose works have been recently been performed, and are apparently still being performed. It therefore clearly fails NFCC#1 because it can be replaced with free photographs of his work in performance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Aha, a different reason now. Well, photography is not allowed in performances, so even if for the sake of argument we considered that a hand-held snapshot would be equivalent to the skilful, well-chosen and carefully-posed shots taken back in 2010, which is frankly absurd, it would be extremely difficult to obtain; but the work of Abilene Morgan with Edward Morgan's active cooperation shown in the poster could not be recreated under any circumstances. The poster shows not only what Edward Morgan was capable of achieving at the height of his creative power, but what he intended to project, and no free equivalent of that exists or will ever exist. If ever something passed NFCC#1 with flying colo[u]rs, this is it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)