I often find it difficult to qualify some dancers as “good” (and therefore others as “bad”) due to the utter subjectivity I’ve found in the art of watching. What I might find impressive and beautiful is not necessarily the same as what others might find appealing. And that’s what makes dance and art so exciting! I do not believe that you have to be flexible (or thin, or ridiculously strong, or insert another adjective of choice here) to be a captivating performer. My aesthetic preference has proven to be as such: if you "own" the movement, if you "commit" to the movement, if you are personally invested and interested in the movement you are performing, I will be interested as well.
One element I believe we can agree on is the importance of expressivity in dance. You’ve led me to my next set of questions.
Check out these clips from Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker, Belgium’s premier state-sponsored choreographer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3wFNtqdAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BkdcL804fo
Corollary Question(s):
Is dance expressive? Or rather, does it have to be? Can dance exist simply for the sake of movement? Or is there always inevitably an imbedded message? If you know anything about the history of modern dance (say, the Judson Church group), feel free to reference some of the historical ideas on this topic. If you are not familiar with this line of philosophical thought in dance theory and history, I’d love to hear your own ideas on the matter!
