What is dance? Or perhaps, is this dance?

[Staiduk]

Hello!

I'm possibly the last person on Earth to have seen PSY's 'Ganham Style' video; since I only got the Internet back in January. I loved it - it was fun, quirky and goofy; attributes I enjoy. But while cruising around looking for related material, I found this video, which features a quintet of utterly enchanting young Korean ladies dancing to the song. I loved it - what man wouldn't? They're beautiful, energetic and obviously having loads of fun. It looks like a weekend college video; thoroughly amateur but thoroughly enjoyable. The girls' ear-to-ear grins are infectious; we have as much fun watching them as they do performing; as intended.
But...the thought struck me...is this dance?

I myself am not a very good dancer. It is, I believe, my greatest artistic weakness. I am an exceptional martial artist. I move my body extraordinarily well for a man my age (late 40's), and in my opinion my Art (the study of various Japanese Martial Arts; the primary being Aikido) shares many attributes with Dance: the expression of the self through the body; the understanding and use of emotion, the partnership and co-operation with a partner. But I never went beyond the martial aspect to explore the purely artistic realms of body movement.

Nevertheless, in my own very limited opinion, I do not believe this is true dance. It is fun, enjoyable, utterly delightful and it must be said very sexy, but it is not dance.
Dance is the expression of the self through the body. Dance explores emotion, expresses desire, tells a story. When people dance in teams, it excites, in terests and inspires.

In my own opinion - and I may be wrong which is EXACTLY why I'm posting this, this is not dance; it is a cheerleader routine - something for a team of girls to perform to get the crowd whooping.

This is not derogatory in any way. My aim here is to find the dividing line between "true Dance" (my definition) and public amusement. (Note:This is probably far from the best example of genuine Dance on the Web; but I tried to find something comparable and I have to admit I am a helpless fan of Cats and this production has some of the finest Cats from around the world involved in its making.)

So I guess to state the question properly: Those lovely Korean girls are fun and enormously entertaining, but is what they are doing true Dance? (and I must emphasize: I am very aware the question might stem from an elitist attitude regarding the 'higher' Arts.)

Cheers!

(Edited to add: OK, OK...Edward wrote this. But I stand behind it. It's an interesting question. Dave)

 

[blixel]

What is dance - is a good question, but I don't think there's one right answer. Dance is very cultural and generational. We might be able to come to a general agreement that such and such physical movement definitely is NOT dance (e.g. a bunch of idiots running around inside of a mosh pit and slamming into each other - is not dance), but I think you'll have a harder time agreeing on what, definitely, is dance.

I like this scene from Take the Lead. That is definitely dance in my humble opinion, but so is this (again - my opinion.)

So what is real dancing? I guess like beauty, the answer lies in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, and if you like cute Korean girls dancing to poppy music, then Bubble Pop is a must.

 

[statickid]

short answer: yes
long answer: it's contemporary group choreography (which is a planned dance, and planning a dance is an art in itself)

There is no line.

really the best way to answer this question is to ask the person performing the activity. If you ask, "are you dancing" and they say "yes," then who is anyone to argue.

You're probably better at dancing than you think :thumbup:

 

[Staiduk]

Ohhhh man -
I really really hate having to respond to Edward - my alternate personality. He is smart and canny but unsophisticated.

I did NOT endorse his post, though he says I did. As long as Edward persists, I MUST find a way to distinguish him from me: Dave's primary personality. Well...to answer the post.

This is very clearly dance; and most delightfully so. But I understand what Edward was asking; so I will try to explain.

I am an Aikidoka - a student of Aikido. I am advanced enough - after 30 years - to study Aikido as a whole; not as mere parts. As a result, when I see Mudansha - students - practicing, I do not see aikido; I see moves.
That is not arrogance. It is an awareness of the difference between practice and understanding. I myself am somewhere in the middle: highly competent in practice and understanding, but ignorant in True Meaning. I doubt I will ever learn the True Meaning of Aikido, all I can do is try and study as hard as I can.

My ignorance is one of my most cherished weaknesses.

Edward saw the video and leaped to a huge conclusion: that dance is technical, with mastery providing Artisrty. (I'm probably writing that wrong.) Martial Arts has that focus: students struggle with technique long past their Black Belt. At an undefined point in their training, Art creeps in to their study.

Neither Edward nor myself are Dancers; he assumed the same paradigm held sway. Even casual examination will show how wrong he - or rather we - was/were.

But he forgot that Art is individual and personal. The girls in that video are not interested in perfect form; they're interested in bouncing around and having huge fun. They might not be performing 'dance' to an exact standard; but they're sure doing what Dance intended: having great fun, and encouraging their watchers to have fun watching them. MiU's million-dollar smile isn't artificial; she's having pure, genuine, crazy fun dancing away to Ari's direction.

Art is individual - it means more to the performer than the viewer. I forgot that, and I apologize.

But I must respond to another point:

You're probably better at dancing than you think :thumbup:

Perhaps - but you MUST understand that I think of these things quite differently than most people. By all accounts I am almost a perfect natural dancer. I am very fit and strong. I am almost unbelieveably fast and quick-reacting for my age (47) - a lifetime of narrowly dodging disasters will do that. Much of my power is in my legs; which many women - not just my sexual partners - have expressed admiration for. I can leap almost two meters straight up. I am - thanks to my Aikido practice - exceptionally graceful and precise in my movements. I have superb balance and can easily stand and walk on a knife-edge. I also have excellent timing and rhythm. I learn physical skills incredibly fast - teachers rarely need to repeat a movement more than twice before I can not only do it, but teach it within the framework of my own experience.

I am neither lying nor arrogant when I say I am the best hand-fighter in the city of Edmonton. It is a simple statement of fact. No gang-banger or druggie has even come close to hurting me and in my rage I have deliberately placed myself in their path. Every one that stood up to me lost.

Nevertheless, I am no dancer at all. Everything above states I should be, but I am not. Why?
Because however similar the movements, Dance and Martial Arts are two very different things.
I think nothing of twisting my hips to send an opponent sailing head-first into the wall, but I'll blush like a schoolgirl if a dance teacher asks me to twitch my pelvis.

I can easily kill opponents - and not just in physical terms - but cannot place my hand on a lady's waist and sway to the music.

Thus to directly respond to the comment: I may well be a much better dancer than I think. But without training, I have no ability at all. Dance - like most Art - depends equally on artistic intent and technical ability. Neither can live without the other.
As a result, I might be graceful, skilled, canny and fit, but until I learn how to dance (and my GF is dragging me out exactly for that urpose) I do not at all know how to dance.

YMMV.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Ah. Korean Pop. Don't get me started at those "dances" by SNSD et al. .... :dry:

 

[PennyBlack]

I did NOT endorse his post, though he says I did. As long as Edward persists, I MUST find a way to distinguish him from me: Dave's primary personality.

Maybe you can encourage Edward to create his own account. I think it would help forum members distinguish Edward from yourself. Just a thought.

(e.g. a bunch of idiots running around inside of a mosh pit and slamming into each other - is not dance.

I've always wanted to have a go in a mosh pit, if only to be one of those idiots running around inside and slamming into another idiot. Your right, it's not dance; but looks good fun.
I loved the old 10 foot floor wheels, where everybody piles as centre as they can on it before it starts to turn at speed, throwing people everywhere. The last man seated in the middle, is the winner. Or until somebody leaps onto him when the rotation turns his back to you. :shifty:
Health and Safety... killed the Wheel.

really the best way to answer this question is to ask the person performing the activity. If you ask, "are you dancing" and they say "yes," then who is anyone to argue.

I think any bodily movement that is motivated by visual or auditory stimulus; could be classed as dance. Like everything else though, it is determind by the viewer (eye of the beholder) according to their interpretation of the dance and the standard of grade by which it is performed. Funny how expressing that opinion can often form the arguement.

 

[Staiduk]

Maybe you can encourage Edward to create his own account. I think it would help forum members distinguish Edward from yourself. Just a thought.

Are you out of your bloody MIND?!?

The LAST thing I need is for this intruder to have an independant existance! My God - l have enough trouble deciding who I am every morning - and that is NOT a joke - without having to deal with Edward manifesting in real-time. He does enough damage in my subconscious. I cannot IMAGINE what he could do if he was allowed an independant existance. Almost a third of my conscious awareness goes to preventing that. And you want me to 'sign him up'? Do you have any idea how dangerous that will be? Edward is a SOCIOPATH! The only thing preventing him from acting is the dominant 'David' persona! I do what I can but Edward is strong, and gets stronger the more I interact with people. Have you any idea how hard I have to fight against him? Do you not understand WHY split-personality people commit suicide? Because we can no longer fight our other selves! Include Edward? Hell no!

DO NOT suggest including Edward. FIGHT HIM. As long as you can, fight him off.
Whenever you detect him, please fight him. Make him miserable on the Forums. I can't fight him alone. I come to this forum because when I talk here, I'm not alone. Edward has to hide in the back. He tries but I can usually corrupt his words - and little else - so that when he rants I can make his words weird rather than hateful. I can't do much more. He comes out in full force when I turn the computer off. And sometimes when its on and I'm distracted. He is strong when I am emotional.
Don't accept him. Fight him off. Please.

 

[statickid]

Ok

I think of these things quite differently than most people

I disagree. Most people pre-exclude themselves as participants in the arts. They do this either out of fear for criticism or because they believe there are prerequisites for claiming an artist's title.

This is the same archaic thinking that fell from grace along with the dissolution of formal art criticism in the mid 20th century. It is the same oppressive paradigm that excluded indigenous (read:non-western)art and dance from the definition of fine art.

The thing is that art is subjective. There is no way to prove that one art-form is superior to another. There is no universally appreciated art. If there was it might be argued that the true pinnacle art-form has finally been discovered.

Since there is no way to measure art's quality, there is no way to judge improvement, nor prove that technical ability improves results. A ballet may be judged to be technically perfect, yet lack soul. A street performer may draw tears from a passerby. The true value of art, at it's very core is based solely on opinion.

In some cases, one may argue that technical ability degrades the sincerity (and thus the value) off the work. The authenticity of the work is lost to contrivance.

The artist's intention is separate from the perception by the audience.

You can't dance because you have decided upon, or been convinced of, a certain definition of dance that is unobtainable by you NOW. Whether or not you can or will ever achieve this "ability to dance" is entirely a self inflicted limitation.

 

[Staiduk]

Nice words, Statickid, but not effective. Dance is an Art and like all Arts, it is based upon skill. Skills are not subject to opinion; at the practical level you either have them or you don't. You are either good or you are not. And in this case, I don't and am not. I am not a dancer; however well I move my body.

I do not doubt that if I wished to learn Dance I could learn very quickly. I am a highly skilled Martial Artist and can easily move my body in the required way. I have an artisitic frame of mind and a certain romantic sense when working on the stage. But at this point in my life I have NOT learned those skills. As such, I am no dancer. Let me practice and I will improve, but for now my dance ability must remain a myth.

 

[statickid]

Dance is an Art and like all Arts, it is based upon skill.

There is no statement of fact here. Your only proof is by assertion. This is either your opinion or an opinion that had been effectively impressed upon you to the point where you believe it to be true. It may also have some basis in what appears to be a tendency to apply what you have learned in your discipline to the subject of art appreciation.

Well I'm telling you now that I am a formally trained and disciplined artist, and the current prevailing philosophy in art is one of pluralism. That is to say that with a global perspective on the arts, and with art having the subjective nature that it has, it can have no single definition or universal rulebook. The definitions of art as given by artists may be equally correct, even when they are contradictory.

This is why I'm telling you that your condition is self inflicted. You have settled upon a certain, inarguable definition of dance that will not be compromised within your own head. You believe dancing is a skill that can be taught or learned. For this reason, you will never dance until you have decided that you are doing it, and it is a personal decision for you at this point.

See now that I can't argue against your definition because it is impossible to argue against an opinion, no matter how cleverly disguised. It is your own personal or cultural value, and it is not shared by all peoples.

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

to summarize concisely: skill may not be subject to opinion, however, the amount of value that skill adds to art IS subject to opinion

 

[Staiduk]

I am well aware my opinion might be limiting; but I maintain it. I'm not really sure how to properly frame my belief, but I will try.

Art is the expression of Self; that expression in and of itself needs no training. We know what is in our hearts.
But in order to properly express ourselves, we must choose certain media - paint, sculpture, music, dance.
Each of those media have specific rules, skills and disciplines. Practicioners of that art either follow the rules or break them - and often the breaking (I'm thinking of Jackson Pollack at the moment) can lead to trancendental performance, ability and beauty. In other words; an Artist who knows the rules and known his/her own Art cannot be contained by them may burst forth - producing Art that is uniquely his/hers.

But this breaks down when an 'artist' - and here I use the term loosely - either does not acknowledge or even know that the rules are there.
I can point to two examples in my life when this point applied. The first was the girlfriend of my close friend "Brian" - a fellow Rifleman in the Patricias. The girl was pretty, blonde, 17, and overwhelmingly confident in her dance abilities - abilities she did, in fact, not posess in any signifigant way. She labelled herself an "Ar-TEEST" and had no interest in pursuing study since, as she said, it would only limit her Art. She was a miserable dancer - little skill, little ability. Her huge ego prevented her from seeing her failings and studying to correct them.
The other example happened 3 years ago when I was looking for a Dojo I could explore Aikido in. I must admit here; I am a challenging student. After almost 30 years I am a good Aikidoist and have very specific needs in order to study my Art. I am also a former Sensei - primary teacher of a school - and have very specific opinions about how Aikido should be taught. Like I said, I'm not an easy student to teach.

I called and made an appointment to take a class at a Dojo near my home. I made sure the Sensei knew of my experience and skill. When I arrived on the mat I was shocked - the teacher had no interest at all in teaching Aikido as I understand it. And forgive me - but I am classed as Sempai - junior Instructor - by the Ki No Kenkyukai (Ki Society World Headquarters, Iwama, Japan), so it is MY definition I will use in this case. It took me less than five minutes to realize this was because he had no understanding at all of the Art. He based his instruction on the UFC - which Edmonton is mad for - "Blending" the skills of Aikido with other skills which - I could see since I've studied many Japanese Arts - he had little knowledge of.
I was willing to sit back, finish the course and leave, but the teacher "Kyle" wanted to show off his 'style'. He wanted to show how superior his style was and in front of his students challenged me to Kumite - free sparring - on the mat. I was not reluctant.

It was a bloody slaughter. I have almost a dozen Asian styles of Martial Arts under my belt; four I have achieved Yudansha classification in. When I walked out I resolved to only employ the Art I'd come to study: Aikido. "Kyle" bounced off walls, rolled across the floor, got bent, twisted, folded and mutilated. He was so certain agression and toughness were important; he forgot - or had never learned - the true nature of Aikido: The Art might be 'soft', but 'softness' is NOT weakness. It is a power totally divorced from strength or agression. He attacked, I defended. The more frenzied his attacks became, the easier my options became. At one point one of his students jumped up and attacked me, defending his teacher. I planted him in the concrete wall; no other students were willing to stand up after that. I did NOT want this conflict but it was childishly easy to deal with for a man of my skill level. I left the teacher bubbling on the mat and walked out. The "dojo" has since closed down.

What I am saying is I understand, appreciate and enjoy the artistic sense that people have, but in order to express that sense, one MUST study the medium one wishes to use. Art in not mere creativity; it is the blending of artistic sense, study and discipline. The discipline is critical; it is the core of artistic study.

So since we are discussing a statement I tossed off simply to make a point, let me emphasize it. I am certain that if I wished, I could be a good dancer. But at the moment, I am NOT one, because I have not in any way trained in Dance. If I wished to I'm sure I could learn, but I haven't studied the discipline. Therefore at the moment I state I am not a good dancer. Should I choose to learn; I'm sure I will do well. But right now I will let real dancers dance. I will study MY Art. All I've learned in 30 years of Aikido practice is how much I have yet to learn.

 

[statickid]

I understand your viewpoint of dance.

I am not actually arguing against it. I am merely trying to help you find the answer to your original question by pointing out that answers will vary but have equal merit due to the subjective nature of art.

After reviewing the original post I have also discovered that you have answered your own question!

My aim here is to find the dividing line between "true Dance" (my definition) and public amusement.
<clip>
So I guess to state the question properly: Those lovely Korean girls are fun and enormously entertaining, but is what they are doing true Dance?

This question can be answered with your other statement:

In my own opinion - and I may be wrong which is EXACTLY why I'm posting this, this is not dance

The answer is "no" by your own definition, they are not dancing; a valid claim based on your definition and cultural values.

You are not wrong, but neither is someone who believes that they are in fact dancing.

I know that may seem like some kind of frustratingly pointless answer containing no information, and in some ways it is.

There is a history lesson here though. This is precisely the reason that art critics have (thankfully) lost their overall influence in the art world. Being able to admit that art is subjective and a matter of opinion takes power away from critics and removes the lines you speak of between a class-based art idealism. It scoffs in the face of art-elitism and gives the artist more freedom of expression.

In my opinion the true success of the art can only be gauged by an honest assessment from the artist. If the artist’s intention is to make money and have mass appeal, but their work is seen as worthless tripe by their targeted audience and buyers, then that artist is failing. When that same artist is appealing to only one person, and that person gives them lots of money, then they are partially successful. If the artist intends to use art as a medium of philosophical exploration or to have an existential experience, and they achieve this for themselves, then they are succeeding even if the artwork is destroyed without being share with anyone.
There is no requirement that art be made for an audience. For the sake of interest, imagine a person who has never danced before and has no training in dance, the result being that they lack any form of skill in the art. This person goes into a dark empty room and in the pitch darkness begins to dance across the floor. There is no record of what occurred except for their own experience of it. This becomes the most significant moment of their life and their eyes become open to what it means to truly be alive and to dance; they never dance again. No one can say that what they accomplished was not profound. No one can tell them that that they were not dancing. No one can tell them that what they did was not art. In my opinion, this would be an example of the highest form of art, transcending all skills and disciplines, experiencing an authentic state of being.

On the other hand, if this same person gets nothing from the experience and feels that they have failed, this failure is also true. Then, while someone secretly watching with night vision goggles is deeply moved by the dance and claims it is the most beautiful thing they have ever seen, no one is qualified to negate this feeling, not even the artist who feels that they have failed. They are both correct, thus, the subjective nature of art.

 

[C3PO]

You could argue that any rhythmic moves set to a beat counts as dancing. However I'd rather call this a performance then a dance in the traditional sense.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

Dance is an expression of art/emotion through movement, of an individual or group, and possibly objects (read Robots). For enjoyment and/or entertainment.

so the below are all "dance" by my definition.

Robot

Ballroom

pole dancing

I know some gymnasts that could not do half her tricks.

Pop

Millitary

02:00 has a good example.


Dance is what you make of it, if you feel good after performing or watching a dance it has done its work.

---------- Post added at 00:33 ---------- Previous post was at 00:17 ----------

blixel - So what is real dancing? I guess like beauty, the answer lies in the eye of the beholder.

Could not agree with you more. Everyone is has their own definition.

There are lots of different defined types of dance, it is down to the individual to decide what is and is not to there own taste.

to summarize concisely: skill may not be subject to opinion, however, the amount of value that skill adds to art IS subject to opinion

Strictly come dancing ("Dancing with the stars" i think its called that in the USA) is a good example of underlying skill (or lack of) at dancing can have on a performance, over time you can observe instruction and training making an effect.

 

[statickid]

Yes, skill has an effect within an established practice but carries less meaning when there is no pre-existing vocabulary of elements to be proficient in, as can be the case in emerging or experimental arts.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

My daughter danced in a competition troupe for several years doing jazz, tap and clog. The clog wasn't so much what people think when they see it though, much more contemporary and high energy. One year was "Please don't stop the music", "Weird Science", and my favorite was Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now".

After much prompting by a mess of teenage girls, I took a class too and "danced" for 7 years, until my knees started to complain too much. My best (my opinion) was clogging to U2's "Vertigo". I thought I was going to die by the end of it. A close second was the Elvis redux "Little Less Conversation".

Even after all that I never considered myself a "dancer", more of a dude trying not to trip over his own feet and fall down, or knock the ladies over that were with me. The upside was it was good exercise, and a few of the ladies (all legal age) were kinda hot. But several of the senior girls (not legal age) would, on occasion, threaten to throw their underwear on stage (and I counted my blessings that they never did, I would have been mortified).

So is it dance in the video. Yes. I can dig it. Is hopping around in a mosh pit dance? Also yes, but I don't "get" it. It's like art, is somebody labels it as art, that's all takes.

 

[Staiduk]

(Chuckle) I freely and gratefully withdraw from the field. My questions and assumptions were wrong and I freely admit it.

I might argue small points but that would be mere semantics.

StaticKid: From everything I've seen, we're arguing the same point; just using different words. I do not wish to argue unless there is value in it; so I will retire the argument. I think I was arguing needlessly.

Thanks folks; this was a very enjoyable and insightful discussion. My thanks.