Sorry to bring up the subject again, but dance is my favorite type of art (not that music and literature aren't amazing, but hey) and I wanted to get some real aesthetical opinions on dance.
Now I definitely favor what I call the "vulgar" dances over current modern "high dance." While traditional high dance in very artistic (a.k.a. ballet and the like) of late most "high" dance seems utterly ridiculous. Case in point is the "ground breaking motion" of the Australian team on Superstars of Dance. I'm still not convinced that doesn't count as gymastics and not dance. It was certainly hard, but this is dance people, not a random aggregate of acrobatic moves without any connection.
By "vulgar" dance I mean dances that were born from people just being social. My favorites are the salsa, merengue, bachata, bomba, plena and the like; however, you are probably more familiar with ones like foxtrot, swing, the lindy, etc... Not only do these dances tend to be very flexible for whatever need (competition, reacreation, etc), they also have morphed into "high" dance which I believe is quite artistic. Case in point the Argentinian duet of the tango on Superstars of Dance. Phenominal! The tango is a perfect example, actually. It began in the brothels of Buenos Aires (what a beginning) and is now the world's most respected form of dance. Granted that there are significant diferences between tango fantasÃa (show tango) and tango arrabal (salon tango), the high dance was born from the vulgar dance.
I suppose I can summarize by saying that the vulgar dances are all that is left. I attribute the decline of high dance to a) apathy towards aethetics b) a desire to be different no matter what, even if you look like an entire retard doing so, and c) an isolation of dance from the other artistic media and cultural celebration. the "cutting edge" of dance is exactly that - something that I want to stay as far away from as possible.
9 comments:
Okay, I'm kind of confused here.
I know you're saying you prefer
Latin "vulgar" dances to what you
say are "high dance". But, what
exactly is high dance? Does it
include ballet? Are you criticizing
ballet? :-)
no, I was trying to make a disctinction between traditional high dance (ballet and the like) which is artistic, and modern high dance, which is just awful. I should post a link to the Australians teams performance. It's like watch me walk on the stage, do something acrobatic but not very dance-ful, and walk right back off again, with absolutely no common thread. (though I must say, I think all of the vulgar dances are better than all of the high dances, but that's just a matter of personal taste)
Here's my first-impression thoughts:
1. Which type of dance is better depends on the definition(s) of dance. If the two kinds of dancing have different definitions, it probably isn't a good idea to compare their objective merits (though you can definitely say which one you prefer). If there is no common definition, comparing the merits is probably like comparing the merits of a painting and a sculpture. If you want a common definition, I would define dance as "Rhythmic human movement."
2. This is what I do to find objective merit of a work of art:
A. Determine, as far as possible, the essence of the art form.
B. Determine, as far as possible, the essence contained in the particular work of art.
C. See how much essence A is fulfilled and how much it is unfulfilled.
D. See whether essence B is a coherent thing or whether it is not.
3. Of course, dance has a subjective element too. Here are some types. Some high dances tell a story or deliver a message. Both the merits of the story and how well it is told determine merit in this category. Some dances express emotion. Both forms of dance can do this, but low dance has a more efficient but limited palette, I think. Both forms of dance also can showcase the skills of the dancers. Low dance is far superior to high dance in this category because all skill-shows have to take place in the context of a set of rules, while in high dance this is not so nearly so much.
4. I prefer to dance low dance (because I can do it), and I prefer to watch high dance (because I cannot do it, I can only watch). Whatever happens, it would be most unfortunate for dance to become a completely consumer art, like music has become. We need low dance, that is certain. We are probably better off having high dance than not having it.
Don Pedro,
Excellent job in keeping the post "Clean." Hee Hee!
OFL
What do you mean by "clean"?
Or do I want to know???
hmm... your analysis is very insightful, and I don't have much to add, except perhaps for a direct example. The cumbia for instance is actually a reinactment of colonial slavery, which is why the traditional costumes are as they are, and which in particular is referred to by the choppy steps of the men dancing, it's supposed to look like them walking with one foot chained. =)
and by clean.... we were discussing perreo earlier. Does that answer your question?
Ancient Greek Philosopher,
Do not ask us what that is...Don Pedro was explaining to me how horrible it is!!! :(
I had a feeling it was something
unpleasant.
Post a Comment