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!
I usually think of dance as a means of expressing oneself but in these videos, this was not the case. The movements were produced as a result of the music. When the music was out of phase, the movements mirrored the rhythm. I personally did not enjoy these pieces because I like expressive dance or when the performers have a story in mind and execute it. The Judson Church group and the Steve Reich pieces may have been too avante garde for me but it was still cool to see how dance and music overlap.
ReplyDeleteThis is Janise Morrison. (It's not recognizing my google account)
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that there is always an imbedded message in everything we do. It is our challenge to express ourself without projecting our own inner message. I am not sure if that disparate relationship can be possible with dance, since the dancer would be physiologically feeling their actions. Either way it is still expressive. And Trang while I agree that Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker's choreography mirrors the rhythm of the music, their bodies also mirror each other. So one could argue that the movements were produced as a result of their gestures.
These pieces really caught my eye because of how close to perfect there dancing was. Not that perfect means good necesarilly but more that the beats and rhythms were almost perfectly syncrinized with each other and the music creating the effect of 3 shadows behind mirroring the dancers almost exactly. To execute this light effect requires much hard work and understanding more than just dance but understanding the counts, breaks, beats, and tempo of the music. These performances were not expressive at all though. They may have mastered the counts and pull off a cool effect there lack of being able to play with that syncrinzation and use more expression to really make it perfect. Overall i enjoyed these videos and thought they were pretty clever with that shadow trick.
ReplyDelete-Christian Huerta
watching these two video, i feel that they do express dance. i feel that dance can be anything. it can be waving your hand to say hello a movement of some sort that can express the meaning of the body. in these videos i see unity repetition. movement that allows these two women to become one. and yet in the same time give there own little twist of their own. dancing in many ways i feel is an expression a way to make anything that much more meaningful. giving it that all to allow you body to speak by itself . These videos express the relationship of the two individuals as very unified because it takes hard work to be that precise and coordinated to become one. from the first video, they create a third person by synchronizing themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe types of dance that appeal to me are usually expressive. However, dance does not necessarily have to be expressive, as seen in Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker’s pieces. The two performers maintain straight faces and don’t express any kind of emotion; yet it cannot be denied that they are dancing. I believe that, in the most basic sense, dance is just movement of the body. It can be extremely expressive, or emerge from just letting your body move in whatever way comes naturally to it, regardless of whether or not there is a certain purpose behind each of the movements. Having said that, while dance does not necessarily have to have an imbedded message behind the movements, it should typically be able to elicit some sort of response from the viewer.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I really like expressive dance. It really interests me when a dancer puts his/her whole mind, body, and soul into a dance piece or tries to tell a story through dance movements. I wouldn't say that dance has to be expressive though. In the Steve Reich pieces, I feel like the dancers kept on repeating movements and changing it up slightly after a few minutes. The pieces did not interest me but I do believe that they are a type of dance. The pieces were definitely different and what stood out to me in the pieces was how synchronized the dancers were with each other and the music. However, I prefer expressive dance because it keeps me wondering what's going to happen next and it's beautiful to see what the human body is capable of doing through dance movements.
ReplyDeleteThis is a complicated question. One would think that dance has to be expressive, because this is what we have been learning, but dance can be whatever one likes. Dance can be used to express one’s self, tell a story (history), or entertainment. Also, one can find an embedded message in any dance they want, but you never really know what the choreographers intent was (for all we know it could have been a joke just to see peoples reactions).
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that dance is expressive. But the term expressive can mean different things to different people- as long as you feel you are expressing to your utmost potential and conveying what you intent to. Therefore, dance can exist simply for the sake of movement as shown in the two videos this week.
ReplyDeleteThe two videos for this week honestly did not interest me as much as the other videos; it was probably because when I think of the general term of dance, I think of more common dance forms like contemporary or ballet, where there is little repetition, with a story and a variety of movements. These two videos were hard to keep my attention due to such repetitive movements, although the lighting, shadows, and cinematography kept me reeled in. In no way am I rejecting these types of movements as dance: it takes a lot of precision and practice to be that synchronized. It was beautiful to watch such close accuracy and the two dancers in both videos were so emotionally invested in every single simple movement they danced.
Additionally, when I think of dance, or a sequence of movements, I think of a message, a story, which allows me to fall into what I am watching, physically feel like I am moving like them. These two videos have shown me a different side of dance, a new perspective that I had never really considered in the past; I see it as a more avant-garde form of dance.
- Nicole Wong
Although I most enjoy dance that is expressive, I in no way believe that expressiveness must be present to constitute a set of movements as dance. As an appreciator of minimalist art, art that has been stripped down to the essentials so that it may expose the true essence of the material or idea, I also appreciate movement simply for the sake of itself. I believe that a dance can be a basic exploration of rhythm using ones body as the experimentation tool, or a personal test of repetitive endurance (how many times can I do the same action to a monotonous beat without changing it or passing out?) I have a very open definition of art and therefore believe that dance can be ANY type of bodily movement! I'd like to think that I dance from class to class, dance in the shower, dance in my sleep. Even our mundane, quotidian movements are comprised of our limbs drawing shapes on a real or imaginary surface, which is what I have come to believe is the constitution of dance.
ReplyDelete-Rebecca
I agree with Rebecca in that I prefer watching expressive dance but the Steve Reich dances are interesting art forms as well. It does take a lot of practice and partnership to create movement in unison like that, and doing repetitive motions can be just as hard as doing a lot of different movements. I found the dances (especially the Piano Phase dance) very mesmerizing and I felt myself drifting away in thoughts as my eyes watched the dancers feel the rhythm and match the music/clapping flawlessly. Dance can exist as anything and in these two videos the dancers are executing a strict set of movements based on embodying the patterns of the music, which is an intriguing and different style of dance that I am glad I was introduced to.
ReplyDeleteIn the two videos, the two dancers move without expression, solely physical models to display the changing rhythm of the music. I was much less captivated by these two videos than the past two week. For me, there's something about the facial expression and something more than just the movement itself. For example, I was interested towards the end of the first video with the piano song as the camera zoomed in on the dancers and revealed their expression and passion for the dance. However, I do believe that dance can exist without expression, solely for the purpose of the movement as seen in the two videos.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the dancers in the two clips seem to move without expression. The dancing seems to solely represent the in and out of phase music. The dancers are able to give the viewer a physical representation of the music without expression. I feel like this is very creative and something I have never experienced before. The viewer is free to choose what expression the music could symbolize. For example, the first clip felt more serious and the second clip was more happy given the tempo of the music and dance movements associated with each piece. After seeing these two clips, I do not believe dance needs to be expressive in order to be beautiful. Dance that does not have a known expression can be freely interpreted by the audience members. The slight variations in music can be picked up by the viewer when the dancers can their movements. The expression that the piece is lacking can be created in the viewers mind using the environment, tempo, and dance movements in the piece.
ReplyDelete~Nicole B.
I think that dance is expressive. Even when these dancers seemly look like
ReplyDeletethey do not have expression maybe they are trying to express the lack of
expression. Maybe they are trying to show mundaness and repetition. I
thought it was amazing how they were able to do the same movements over
and over and how cleanly they were able to follow the beats of the piano
and claps. I believe that dance cannot exist for the sake of movement
because that woudl just be movement. I think that dance is an outward
expression of emotions and sentiments within. For instance, if one where
to walk down library walk that is a movement for the sake of the movement
of walking to class, however, if one is to prowl like what we do in class
down library walk, I would consider that dance because there must be some
emotion conviction the person to walk so strangely down the sidewalk.
Therefore, I believe dance inevitably has an imbedded message. Although these dances caught my eye at first, I believe for the audience to be intrigued into the dance, expression is necessary which was not necessarily represented here.
I am unsure whether I will be able to clearly explain my thoughts about such philosophical questions, but I will try my best within the paragraph that I am allowed. To me, these questions do not establish answers that are "either or," but instead they create a kind of paradox. Although dance may not HAVE TO be expressive in the sense that it tells a particular story, it will always express an emotion/feeling in the end. And although dance CAN BE created simply for the sake of movement, it will always inevitably deliver a message once it is performed, whether or not it be the same message to each audience. I believe that dance itself is an expression--an expression that could be either intentional or unintentional. For example, in the clapping video, some may see it merely as a repetition of movements, while others may see it as an expression of a desire to break free from a routine/mechanical lifestyle. In other words, the dancers do not necessarily have to exert there own emotion (or lack of emotion) upon the audience; the resulting expression is all based on interpretation of the performance itself. Hopefully I make some sense when I say that inexpressive dance still has the ability to be expressive, and that movements created just for the sake of movement can still deliver a message.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, in the Piano Phase video clip, I am particularly fascinated with the use of light to create the dancing shadows in the background. The idea of the two lighter shadows on the outside & then the darker shadow in the middle that combines the two dancers is beyond me. I love it.
I strongly believe that all dance is expressive, whether it tells a story, expresses emotion, and/or conveys a message. Even these two pieces from from Anne Teresa de Keersmaekerm are expressive. The dancers managed to share a story with their facial expressions and constricted movements. Their hair and clothing in each piece seemed thoughtfully arranged to contribute to sharing their story. I found these pieces very strange and hard to understand, but overall I enjoyed experiencing a new genre of dance.
ReplyDeleteI believe dance is an expression of art and it can be as expressive or minimal as the dancer desires. Movement belongs to the person and the manner in which they express their emotions is purely up to the dancer. In these clips, the two women are able to captivate the audience even with their minimal movements because they are committed to every heel-toe and spotted turn. The women are personally invested to their movements and interested, so I am interested as well.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, there doesn’t have to be an imbedded message in every dance because people can dance for the sake of just moving or working out, but there are people who like to express their personal stories through moving, and this is completely acceptable and respectable. Therefore, dance is expressed depending on how the dancer wants to interpret movement because after all, it is his/her body moving.
-sabrien pabla
I think that movement is inherently meaningful and therefore it would be difficult to create a movement devoid of any expression. The fact that we can move, that we can assert ourselves in space is expressive, so I don't think I do think it is inevitable to create a dance without an embedded message. Additionally simply the act of moving, instead of standing still is an expression and a statement.
ReplyDeleteThe dancers in the posted videos still manage to express something despite the mechanistic movement. I would venture to guess that this may be the message behind the piece, that no matter how much you attempt to take out the expression, emotion and variability out of movement it still expresses something, even if that is the expression of something mechanistic and emotionless.
I also believe that we express emotion in every movement we make, in a subconscious sense. The fact that we move and the way we move gives much insight into our internal state.
I don't believe that any movement can be considered meaningless because no matter how mindless a movement there is always an intent or inner monologue going on within you. If you make movement for the sake of movement, I still feel like that is a conscious choice. You are choosing not to put any certain emotion or feeling into it, and thus that is the meaning behind the movement. And then, as I've discussed previously, all movement is dance and therefore all dance always expresses some sort of emotion, even if it is indifference. If someone is, by certain standards, considered a bad dancer because of "lack of expression or feeling", it isn't that there isn't feeling behind it; rather, it would be because they aren't putting the expected feelings behind the movement that they are projecting to the audience. A dancer could be putting forth indifference or uncertainty in their movements and that, even though it is not what we expect or necessarily want when watching a dancer, is still a form of expressing their inner thoughts. You can tell a lot about how a person is feeling through what they choose to express or not express. There is a conscious effort in choosing whether or not you want to put in effort or feeling into a movement.
ReplyDeleteI think dancing is a way of express feelings. If without dancers feeling in it, it would be meaningless to me because it would be the same as everyday movement. I don't enjoy the Judson Church group's show personally. Even though they are good at spinning and the movements look elegant, I will be more interested in the show which dancers are less professional but with feeling in the dance. And that's one of the most important reason why I love dancing. It gives me a way to release emotions.
ReplyDeleteYuanyuan Liu
I agree with most of the posts so far that suggest dance is usually expressive in any form. Even moving for the sake of movement is expressing something.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of this question in terms of these two videos I think of it much like any art. If it engages the audience, hopefully it is causing them to question what is going on and why. What meaning is there, or is there even a meaning? What I enjoy most about dance is it is often a collaborative effort. The dancers can often be the main feature, but the music, costume, location and lighting effects all have a huge impact, too. I think this was best demonstrated in the video with the dancers' shadows in the background. The dancers, choreography and sound tech, all had an impact on what the audience takes away every time someone watches that video. Many artists contributing to developing thought and maybe causing people to think about things differently, even if it is just about how they move their own bodies.
I am definitely not familiar with dance theory or history, but I find it fascinating to imagine what may exist within these fields to allow for the presence of performances such as those shown in these videos. Dance, as a cultural construction, is expressive because it exists for a specific reason at a specific moment in history in a specific location within a specific community of people. To be expressive just means to convey meaning. If a performance is staged or enacted it is done so to communicate something to an audience, whether the purpose is to show that movement need not be tied to emotion or need not have a specific message, these are still messages in and of themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think that what Kat and a few others mentioned about the importance of identifying the dancers and the audience as multiple interpretors of the dance is important. This points to the fact that it is actually up to the choreographers, the dancers, and the audience to attribute meaning to movement. The movement itself may mean different things to different people, convey certain ideas, be aesthetically interesting or beautiful, or bring forth great emotion. There may be no embedded message, but I believe that the choreographers, dancers, and audience will all find a reason to explain why this movement exists-and thus make meaning out of this artistic expression. At that point I believe the movement becomes dance.
oh and this is Katrina Hoffman
DeleteThese two pieces were seemingly movements for the sake of movements, but watching them more closely the subtle movements seemed to physically be demonstrating an interpretation of the music. The repetition of the same phrase, for me, was sort of realized as a hypnotic or meditative kind of movement. I was drawn to the breath of the dancers within the movement of the first piece. In the second piece to see the extreme traveling they were doing with such limited movement was fascinating. When you notice these subtleties in these pieces the movement becomes less about the predictability of the phrase and more abstract, you begin to notice what the piece id doing as separate from what the movers are doing.
ReplyDeleteDancing is not simply described to one thing or another. Saying that someone ‘dances’ doesn’t accurately portray anything about that person’s style of dance, why they are dancing, or how they are dancing. One must decipher what style of dance is being performed, the intention for dancing at that moment (i.e. context of the situation), and judge how well the dance moves are performed with respect to what is considered appropriate for that particular style. When the full analysis is complete, a general impression is left of that ‘dance’ because it was based on objective measures. It’s at this point that people usually determine if the dance was expressive. Did the dance demonstrate a particular theme? Was the dancer full of emotion while dancing? Did that add to, or take away, from the dance as whole?
ReplyDeleteEssentially, dance is what one makes of it. It can be expressive. It doesn’t need to be because dancing is versatile and abstract at times.
Well, in my perspective, I thought dance has to be expressive. However after I watch these two video, I change my mind and know that there can be such kind dance without expressing the performers' feeling on their own. All the dancers in these two videos only perform a single movement to attach the rhythm of the music. And both of the performers did the exactly same postures to complete the performance. However for me, to be honest, it's kind of hard for me to focus on such performance more than five minutes. I prefer to watch the expressive dance and feel that that kind of dance can persuade me to figure out the emotions of the dancer. Their facial expression can bring me their feelings and help me enjoy the dance. However, without the expression, dance can not be as attractive as before to me. All in all, emotion plays an important role to perform a dance.
ReplyDeleteThese two videos portray expression in a different art-form. In an approach that embodiment is through the intricacy of their movements to cultivate their expression and story. Dance is expressive in all forms; whether it is by movement or by expressive cultivation's through the soul, I believe it is all expressions. I do believe that dance exist and carry an embedded message through all realms. Whether it is someone just dancing for the sake of movement, they are portraying a message of whom they are as an individual; someone who is living in the moment and expressing themselves in that moment of time. On the other hand, these two videos opened my horizons to the concept that every dance is not necessarily always overly expressive in facial expressions, etc; However, the beauty of embodied movement, intricacy, and various levels that are being expressed carry its own embedded message. If there is not an obvious embedded message, I find it intriguing to always find your own meaning and fulfillment of ones' expression. I truly believe there is always beauty in ones' expression through movement. I am not familiar with modern dance history and theory, but I highly appreciate this beautiful art-form. To understand and feel ones' expression through embodiment is one of the most powerful feelings to grasp. Inner feelings being expressed through embodied movement is a powerful and strong aspect that intrigues me. It's inspiring to forget your reality for that time being when you are captivating and observing another souls' expression through modern dance or all realms of dancing. It really gives me clarity to the quote, "Dance to express, not impress."
ReplyDelete