Obsessed with all things dance as I am; I’ve been recently intrigued by the sheer amount of people that say that although they like dance, they don’t really ‘get’ it – particularly contemporary dance.
It’s got me interested for 2 reasons:
1) As a regular dance reviewer and writer I’m a little worried that maybe I don’t ‘get’ it then either; besides a fair amount of dance classes and watching performances, I’ve never had any formal technical background in dance. Perhaps to really ‘get’ dance you need this? It’s non-verbal communication – and like any other language, in order to understand it you need to be familiar with all its vocabulary.
2) I’m a bit confused about what there is to ‘get’; or, what ‘getting it’ really means. One of my favourite dance quotes comes from the amazingly talented US choreographer Alvin Ailey (I’m massively paraphrasing here, because I can’t find the quote anywhere): "People are always saying they don’t ‘get’ dance. What is there to get? Some people come on stage and leap around for a bit. That’s dance." This comes from one of the current greatest choreographers in the world.
I recently came across this feature in article 19 on William Forsythe’s latest dance project; Synchronous Objects, in which he represents his latest work ‘One Flat Thing’ with a time lines, graphics and commentary, in order to make dance ‘more accessible’. Hmmm … Not sure that it makes dance any more ‘accessible’ but it’s certainly a pretty awesome way of re-interpreting dance digitally.
The problem is, or, perhaps, the joy is that dance is its own language; essentially it’s non-verbal communication; so to try and explain it in words, or even time-lines and graphics is inherently flawed. Maybe the crux of the matter is that we’re trying to ‘understand’ dance in the way that we understand other things; superimposing onto it a frame of reference (language, graphics etc) that it doesn’t refer to. Perhaps it doesn’t need to be ‘understood’ in this way, but simply experienced.
It could be said that e.g. a classically trained ballet dancer could ‘understand’ a work in that they could pick it apart and describe its constituent parts and explain the nuances and significances of the technique involved, but I don’t really think that’s the point. Dance is more than just the sum of its technically detailed parts.
This isn’t to say that any of the talented and experienced practitioners, choreographers, directors or critics in the world of dance have no more insight than any audience member, because that would be unfairly dismissing their years of knowledge and expertise in this field. The point is that dance, like all other art forms, can be deeply appreciated without necessarily being understood in all its technical detail – and I think that this is what counts.
I recently went to see the utterly fabulous Rambert at the Hippodrome with Abby, who wrote up the occasion in her blog. What she wrote, to me, typifies this whole matter. Starting off with: “I have … always enjoyed the spectacle and the sheer physical effort [of dance]. But until I saw the Rambert I wasn’t entirely convinced I ‘got’ dance” she ends with: “Seeing the Rambert was a fantastic experience - I was completely blown away. … it was an arts experience that has stayed with me…you never know when and how art can take you someplace else.”
That, to me, is ‘getting’ dance.
It’s got me interested for 2 reasons:
1) As a regular dance reviewer and writer I’m a little worried that maybe I don’t ‘get’ it then either; besides a fair amount of dance classes and watching performances, I’ve never had any formal technical background in dance. Perhaps to really ‘get’ dance you need this? It’s non-verbal communication – and like any other language, in order to understand it you need to be familiar with all its vocabulary.
2) I’m a bit confused about what there is to ‘get’; or, what ‘getting it’ really means. One of my favourite dance quotes comes from the amazingly talented US choreographer Alvin Ailey (I’m massively paraphrasing here, because I can’t find the quote anywhere): "People are always saying they don’t ‘get’ dance. What is there to get? Some people come on stage and leap around for a bit. That’s dance." This comes from one of the current greatest choreographers in the world.
I recently came across this feature in article 19 on William Forsythe’s latest dance project; Synchronous Objects, in which he represents his latest work ‘One Flat Thing’ with a time lines, graphics and commentary, in order to make dance ‘more accessible’. Hmmm … Not sure that it makes dance any more ‘accessible’ but it’s certainly a pretty awesome way of re-interpreting dance digitally.
The problem is, or, perhaps, the joy is that dance is its own language; essentially it’s non-verbal communication; so to try and explain it in words, or even time-lines and graphics is inherently flawed. Maybe the crux of the matter is that we’re trying to ‘understand’ dance in the way that we understand other things; superimposing onto it a frame of reference (language, graphics etc) that it doesn’t refer to. Perhaps it doesn’t need to be ‘understood’ in this way, but simply experienced.
It could be said that e.g. a classically trained ballet dancer could ‘understand’ a work in that they could pick it apart and describe its constituent parts and explain the nuances and significances of the technique involved, but I don’t really think that’s the point. Dance is more than just the sum of its technically detailed parts.
This isn’t to say that any of the talented and experienced practitioners, choreographers, directors or critics in the world of dance have no more insight than any audience member, because that would be unfairly dismissing their years of knowledge and expertise in this field. The point is that dance, like all other art forms, can be deeply appreciated without necessarily being understood in all its technical detail – and I think that this is what counts.
I recently went to see the utterly fabulous Rambert at the Hippodrome with Abby, who wrote up the occasion in her blog. What she wrote, to me, typifies this whole matter. Starting off with: “I have … always enjoyed the spectacle and the sheer physical effort [of dance]. But until I saw the Rambert I wasn’t entirely convinced I ‘got’ dance” she ends with: “Seeing the Rambert was a fantastic experience - I was completely blown away. … it was an arts experience that has stayed with me…you never know when and how art can take you someplace else.”
That, to me, is ‘getting’ dance.
no comments
Add a comment
To add a comment you must be signed in as a registered user.
Registering is free and easy.
RSS