Dance: Art, Sport or Science ?

[straycat]

Originally Posted by Feelingpink

...

To compare it with photography, if a dance artist was Henri Cartier-Bresson, then most of the rest of us are probably still waving around our camera phones.

But hey, feel free to disagree.

I don't disagree. Despite my rather judgemental way of looking at the whole thing, I certainly don't call myself a dancer (or a dance 'artist' by your view) - and I quite likely never will. I can, on the other hand, see where I want to go with it, and I'm learning the things I think will help me get there.

In this world of continuously-moving goalposts, I'll never actually reach a point I'll be truly satisfied with, of course. But I'm loving the journey

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by ducasi

For something to be a sport, doesn't it need an element of competition? Otherwise, it is a pastime.

Dancing is an art. Taking it into competition makes it a sport. Analysing it gives it a science.

Aren't there any competitions? Last time I checked there were quite a lot. Certainly not everybody competes but all gymnasts compete either. Still, you wouldn't contest calling gymnastics a sport, would you? If you require the availability of competitions then dance qualifies as a sport. However, I doubt sport has a general requirement for competition.

[MartinHarper]

Can anyone give any positive reasons why dance should be an art? Mostly, folks arguing that seem to be saying that it isn't a sport or a science, so therefore it must be an art, but I'm not sure that follows.

Technique on its own is useless.

A leg on its own is useless, but I still like mine.

[straycat]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

A leg on its own is useless, but I still like mine.

Roasted or boiled?

[dance cat]

Originally Posted by TA Guy

Dance is not a Science.

Dance is about moving to music, nothing more, nothing less. A dancer is someone who moves to music. Whether that is by learning fixed moves, or in a wonderful show of emotional dance expression is completely irrelevent because both are simply steps on the same path. (Zen moment there )

I feel there's more to it than just moving to music. I'd say dance is about responding to music rather than just moving. Dance comes from an emotional response, you feel something because of the music or wish to convey an emotion. When I hear a piece of music that makes me want to dance I'm responding to the feeling of joy that music brings me.
I'm definitely not a dancer but I am musical and to me the two are closely intertwined. If dancing was just moving to music then I would dance to anything, but I don't. I dance to what inspires me, to what makes me want to express my feelings of joy when I hear a great piece of music.
I have to say that this thread has made me think about why I dance. I've always said dance is my way of switching my brain off from all the things that make me worried, angry or any of the many other countless things in my job that cause me stress. After this I think perhaps there might be a bit more to it.

[ducasi]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Aren't there any competitions? Last time I checked there were quite a lot. Certainly not everybody competes but all gymnasts compete either. Still, you wouldn't contest calling gymnastics a sport, would you? If you require the availability of competitions then dance qualifies as a sport. However, I doubt sport has a general requirement for competition.

My point is for some people it's a pastime, for others it is an art, a science or a sport. Sometimes it's all these things.

Many (most?) sports, as well as being a sport, are a pastime or recreational activity. I'd say that a gymnast who doesn't take part on competition (in some sense of the word), isn't a sportsman/woman.

I can't think of a sport that doesn't involve competition.

There's certainly plenty of "dancers" who take no part in competitions and would be surprised to here of their favourite pastime described as a sport.

[ducasi]

Originally Posted by dance cat

I feel there's more to it than just moving to music. I'd say dance is about responding to music rather than just moving. Dance comes from an emotional response, you feel something because of the music or wish to convey an emotion. When I hear a piece of music that makes me want to dance I'm responding to the feeling of joy that music brings me.
I'm definitely not a dancer but I am musical and to me the two are closely intertwined. If dancing was just moving to music then I would dance to anything, but I don't. I dance to what inspires me, to what makes me want to express my feelings of joy when I hear a great piece of music.

I agree about the emotion part – I define art as the creative (or deliberate) expression of an emotion. And I do class dance as a form of art. However, we're not all as creative as each other – some people's range of emotional expression created by music (without instruction to give them a vocabulary to express their feelings) can stretch only as far as shuffling their feet in time to the music.

Just because they're not the da Vinci of the dance world doesn't mean that they are not dancing.

[spindr]

Originally Posted by Sparkles

Well, the olympic committee certainly seem to agree with you on that one (as far as ballroom dancing is concerned at least) but I'd like to know the reason why... after all what can you say of a sports person that you cannot say of a 'dancer'?

Yep, apparently "ice" is required to make "dance" a sport

SpinDr

[ducasi]

Originally Posted by spindr

Yep, apparently "ice" is required to make "dance" a sport

Hey, it's slippy out there, you know!

[TA Guy]

I think sometimes, after dancing for a long time, you can forget exactly what is involved in a very first beginners class. Maybe things are taken for granted.

It isn't just moves. In fact, I don't need to tell everybody it's usually a short routine, but that routine also includes rudimentary lead and follow, implying at least some kind of basic connection, and, of course, movement. Everything you need to dance, to get you moving to music, is included in that very first beginners lesson.

To view an average Ceroc night lesson as 'just moves' is just wrong. I admit, some of those things, lead and follow, connection etc. are not expanded upon very much, and some are implied rather than taught explicitly, but that's not Cerocs goal, and it certainly does not mean those who do Ceroc do not have those things at least at the most very basic level.

I also agree that adding emotional content, attitude, expressing yourself can add to the dance, but again, that is a personal thing. One persons dance expression is anothers 'too embarrassing to do'. That doesn't mean the dancers who do not have the tools, or are loathe to express themselves fully, are not dancers. They might not be quite so good as the expressive dancer in some cases, but they are still a dancer. There is no minimum amount of this kind of content you need before you earn the right to be called a dancer. There are no winning lines unless you want to set your own personal ones, no standards to achieve unless you want to set your own personal ones. Just dancers.

So, sorry, but setting artificial winning lines, or artificial standards when you judge whether others are 'dancers' or not is, in my mind, not the correct thing to do.

[Feelingpink]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

Can anyone give any positive reasons why dance should be an art? Mostly, folks arguing that seem to be saying that it isn't a sport or a science, so therefore it must be an art, but I'm not sure that follows...

Art goes beyond mere physicality or limits - it is about beauty. When you listen to YoYoMa play the cello, you can hear that he's putting the notes wherever he wants in the auditorium. He's gone beyond thinking about what position his fingers are in or what the little black dots said on the page ... he's somewhere else and if you're listening & watching him you can see and hear that (whether or not you 'think' you are musical enough to hear the difference). The end point is that his music can be pure beauty ... and great dancers can do the same thing - creating shapes and rhythms and responses that are simply beautiful.

[dance cat]

Originally Posted by ducasi

I agree about the emotion part – I define art as the creative (or deliberate) expression of an emotion. And I do class dance as a form of art. However, we're not all as creative as each other – some people's range of emotional expression created by music (without instruction to give them a vocabulary to express their feelings) can stretch only as far as shuffling their feet in time to the music.

Just because they're not the da Vinci of the dance world doesn't mean that they are not dancing.

I don't feel I was saying anything about levels of dancing or being elite in order to be a dancer. As I put in my post I'm not a dancer, but dancing for me is much more than just putting moves to music. It's interesting that when people I work with find out I can play the piano (in the style of Les Dawson's younger sister!) they then often refer to me as a musician. I can make music and I can dance to music but I never claim proficiency in either area. However other people perceive us in different ways. If people can relate to dancing or music through simple shuffling of feet then I wouldn't decry their response or say that it's not as valid as a virtuoso in either discipline.

[Gadget]

One thing that seems to be missing in all the discussion: your partner.
If I say that 'dance is an expression of music', I am proposing that a dancer must be able to express the music to actually be a "Dancer". However this is very self-centred and ignoring the fact we dance with a partner - a dancer has to be able not only to express the music themselves, but cooperate with their partner and help them express the same music at the same time.

If we look at the sporting analogy, the closest 'sport' to dancing would have to primaraly be a cooperative one - eg. doubles tennis or team games. But in sports you have a clearly defined objective. What's the objective in Dancing? Whatever your answer, it's purley speculative and based on your own viewpoint. There are no scientific rules to define an objective: it's subjective.

However there are scientific theories and practices - defined rules and methods that will enable you to move better, have a better connection with your partner, understand the music better, etc. You can disect and examine every movement, the forces applied, the timeing, how each piece can marry with music, how each peice can join onto the prior one. But ultimatly, dancing is more than the sum of it's parts. It requires some creativity and 'chaotic' element - you can't put science on top of that.

[Feelingpink]

Originally Posted by Gadget

One thing that seems to be missing in all the discussion: your partner. ....

I understood the question to be "Dance: art, sport or science" rather than "Partner dance: art, sport or science", hence my posts.

[spindr]

Originally Posted by Gadget

If we look at the sporting analogy, the closest 'sport' to dancing would have to primaraly be a cooperative one

Isn't "ice dance" a closer sport?

SpinDr

[Gadget]

Originally Posted by feeling pink

I understood the question to be "Dance: art, sport or science" rather than "Partner dance: art, sport or science", hence my posts.

But we all partner dance; very few are solo dancers. When we talk about "dance" here, I automatically assume it's "partner dance" - why assume otherwise?

Isn't "ice dance" a closer sport?

I'm sure you meant
Isn't "ice dance" closer to a sport?

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by ducasi

Many (most?) sports, as well as being a sport, are a pastime or recreational activity. I'd say that a gymnast who doesn't take part on competition (in some sense of the word), isn't a sportsman/woman.

I can't think of a sport that doesn't involve competition.

There's certainly plenty of "dancers" who take no part in competitions and would be surprised to here of their favourite pastime described as a sport.

Somehow I have a feeling I completely disgree with all that. But thn again, nobody forces us to have the same opinion. We could make it a competition of who may win the argument and the call discussing a sport, too. While writing that silly sentence I actually remembered that many years back I used to play chess competitively. Yet, at no point was I going to call it sport, despite being a pastime that I had taken to competitive level. Some may still call it 'sport/exercise for the brain'. And while writing this, would you call non-competitively exercised activity exercise and competitively exercised activity sport?

I really don't think that you can only call your activity sport if you are engaging into competitions. Sounds like an evil plan to force a definition.

Originally Posted by Gadget

But we all partner dance; very few are solo dancers. When we talk about "dance" here, I automatically assume it's "partner dance" - why assume otherwise?

Assumptions, assumptions ....

[bigdjiver]

I looked up sport on www.dictionary.com and there are lots of definitions, including from pastime to competive athletic activity with rules.

I liked the idea of romantic dalliance, but that, alas, is allegedly obsolete.

I did not find the current definition - something for which you need banned substances to do well

[ducasi]

Here's a poll on this question...