Dance: Art, Sport or Science ?

[TA Guy]

Inspired by these two posts.

Originally Posted by DavidB

I wouldn't like to define the difference between 'someone doing a dance' and a 'dancer'. Despite that, I'm pretty sure that all MJ classes (at least all the ones I've seen) just teach people how to do the dance.
There are a handful of people who do MJ I would class as dancers. Some are natural dancers. Others have trained in other dance forms. I don't think any became dancers purely from doing MJ.
But I think now there is a possibility that someone could do this - ie learn enough about dancing from MJ to be classed as a dancer. However they would have to go to several different teachers, as I don't believe any one teacher has that level of knowledge yet.

Originally Posted by Sparkles

I love dancing. I love the challenge of interpreting the music and of following the leads of many many different people. I like the idea I can dance my way to a piece of music without being told it's wrong. I've been dancing (properly) for over 20years now, but I'm not a dancer and never will be one. And that's just fine by me .

To me, Sparkles is a dancer. (but, of course, I respect your right to call yourself whatever you want )
With all the respect due.... I have no idea what DavidB is talking about, but I know he is not talking about dance.... or dancers. Maybe competition judging?

People talk about having a good frame like it's something you can fix with a tape measure. They talk about technique like it's some holy grail, which, if you find it, WOW! You are a dancer! It's complete crap. Technique on it's own is useless. Technique is merely a means to an end. Some of the most technically gifted dancers are the most boring or most mechanical.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against improving technique, I've done it myself, but I was a [bad/average/good] dancer before that, and I'm a [bad/average/good] dancer now. The point is, I'm a dancer both ways. 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 )
Likewise, this is not a sport, how far you go down 'the path' is completely upto the individual. Crossing the winning line is not the goal. People do not need to be put down as 'not dancers' simply because of some (usually insecure) desire to separate the elite from the rest.

Of course, there is a big difference between a 'professional dancer', and a 'dancer'. Likewise, competitions do exist. But these things are merely measuring devices and actually have no relevance to what a 'dancer actually is'.

My view is; Dance is an art form.
Sure, some art appeals to more people than other art, that doesn't mean it's not all art.
Sure, some dancers happen to be better than other dancers, that doesn't mean they are not all 'dancers'.


Rant over.

[bigdjiver]

This thread might be relevant "Canvas, stage or artform?":

http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/s...earchid=821180

One of the reasons that I love MJ is that it can be several different things in one evening. I love exploring my limits.

[straycat]

Good rant.

I believe the distinction David was talking about was pretty simple. Most (not all) MJ classes teach you to do MJ moves. They do not teach you to dance. The same is true for many different dances and teachers - many Salsa classes I've been to are like that, quite a few Lindy classes....
One of the top London Salsa teachers was recently heard to say that to his regret, he and his peers had been teaching people to 'move their arms and legs' rather than teaching them to dance. You need technique to get beyond a certain level. Where that level is depends on a lot of things (including your own level of natural talent) - but there's absolutely no-one in MJ or any other form of dance who couldn't benefit from some or more training in dance technique.

This isn't about snobbishness. This is about how good you want to be, and what you're prepared to do to reach that level. It's a very personal thing. I've spent a week of classes with one top Lindy teacher, where we did very little but learn to walk & connect with the floor. NOT everyone's cup of tea. But I still feel the benefits of those lessons every single time I dance, or even sometimes when walking down the street.

Look at some of the people who we regard as top MJ dancers - Nina, for example, has years of ballet training, and is a qualified ballet teacher. Amir trained at the Rambert School of Dance - people like this are such amazing dancers not purely through natural talent (although I'm not denying they have it), but through a lot of hard work and formal training.

You don't get this at a Ceroc class - that's not what Ceroc's about.

If you want to perform or compete, dance technique lessons will help you vastly improve the way you look and feel. For social dancing, working on your frame will give you better connection, hence a clearer, stronger, more versatile lead, and more and more dimensions on what you can achieve with a partner.

Dancing is an art, yes. And technique alone won't make you an artist. But it will give you a fantastic range of tools to combine with your art, and take it to places you could only have dreamed of without them.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by TA Guy

To me, Sparkles is a dancer. (but, of course, I respect your right to call yourself whatever you want )
With all the respect due.... I have no idea what DavidB is talking about, but I know he is not talking about dance.... or dancers. Maybe competition judging?

To me it is quite amazing that Sparkles has been dancing for more than 20 years already ... Some people must start right in the cradle.

As for DavidB, I am not sure how you throw competition and judgin into his post, appears to be perfectly clear to me, just a bit more abstract that most other posts.

---------------

As far as sport, art or science, I think dancing is a sport. It becomes an art when you try to get into it more and can get past the shallow initial approach. As for science, elements of dancing, certain moves, even music, can become science should you feel the desire to break everything down to the last atom and try to find explanations to everything. Still, at all times I will remain sport. I think

[Alice]

Why can't it be all three?

[Geordieed]

Originally Posted by TA Guy

Inspired by these two posts.

People talk about having a good frame like it's something you can fix with a tape measure. They talk about technique like it's some holy grail, which, if you find it, WOW! You are a dancer! It's complete crap. Technique on it's own is useless. Technique is merely a means to an end.
Rant over.

I think it is a question of where you draw the deviding lines. It is like people saying that they can't draw. Everyone can draw, just some better than others. You can treat technique as a science and the more I have learnt from the best teachers around the more I see how true this is. In the last year or so I have learnt some of the principles of cause and effect of muscle use in both leader and follower and wow the amount of thought and effort gone into the information that has been taught to me shows that it is a science. I have been completely amazed and introduced to another world by some of the ideas of how the human body can move when it is trained to move under certain guidelines and how it moves through outside influence. Technique can take us to places we have never been before but it is not the only place to visit. I don't think enough is understood by what frame is within Ceroc. I learnt a little about frame from an Argentinian Tango teacher from Argentina and was amazed by how little I knew.

Unfortunately the effects of these techniques can't be easily described it can only be felt. It is also like being in love. You know it when it happens and you are either in love or you are not. Sorry but this does not help much but that's they way it is. Truely great connection goes beyond the physical. It is really difficult but if you have never felt it then you will always be sceptical about the whole thing.

Good technique can improve us but doesn't necessarily make us a better dancer. Ceroc doesn't teach us how to dance. I apologise if this offends anyone but Ceroc only teaches us moves. It is up to the people doing it to make it into a dance. It has been said before that Ceroc is a framework to which we add the body to and give it form.

Originally Posted by TA Guy

Inspired by these two posts.

Some of the most technically gifted dancers are the most boring or most mechanical.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against improving technique, I've done it myself, but I was a [bad/average/good] dancer before that, and I'm a [bad/average/good] dancer now. The point is, I'm a dancer both ways. Dance is not a Science.

Rant over.

What you have to remember is that these mechanical dancers might have bored you but it might have meant the world to them. Remember what they felt would have been different to what the rest of the world could see. Unfortunately I can't ever see a time when technique is something that you can reach an end to unless you stop dancing altogether.

[Alice]

Originally Posted by Geordieed

<snip> Lots of good stuff

What you have to remember is that these mechanical dancers might have bored you but it might have meant the world to them. Remember what they felt would have been different to what the rest of the world could see. Unfortunately I can't ever see a time when technique is something that you can reach an end to unless you stop dancing altogether.

Maybe what he meant is that there are some who have a brilliant technique but not that extra "spark" that makes them special. In other words- technique is great and can always be improved.... but it's not all you need to become a fantastic dancer.

In music it's the same- you can hear people who might be technically brilliant but you can't hear the soul of the music or the story they're telling.

[robd]

Originally Posted by TA Guy

They talk about technique like it's some holy grail, which, if you find it, WOW! You are a dancer! It's complete crap. Technique on it's own is useless. Technique is merely a means to an end. Some of the most technically gifted dancers are the most boring or most mechanical.

This reminds me, in a tangential way, of something Ron Atkinson said relating to football. Can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines of 'Technique is being able to trap a ball or pass a ball or head a ball. Skill is being able to do that whilst a 6' 4 centre-half is trying to kick you up in the air' so, yes, technique alone is not enough. I can trap a ball and pass a ball (I'm rubbish at heading it ) but nowhere near well enough in a match situation. I play football but I would not describe myself as a footballer. Likewise I dance but I would never describe myself to other people as a dancer. Perhaps Ron's definition of skill as it would be applied to someone dancing is what separates those who dance from those who are dancers?

Robert

[Beowulf]

It must be a sport.

Process of deduction. I understand Art, I'm good at Science.. ergo by a process of elimination dance must be a sport as I not a sporty type

[Geordieed]

Originally Posted by Alice

Maybe what he meant is that there are some who have a brilliant technique but not that extra "spark" that makes them special. In other words- technique is great and can always be improved.... but it's not all you need to become a fantastic dancer.

In music it's the same- you can hear people who might be technically brilliant but you can't hear the soul of the music or the story they're telling.

True but that doesn't change the point I was making that without actually being that person you have no idea of how the experience was for them and we are judging them. The technical musician could be having the time of their lives and feel the music deep inside. They just might not be communicating it to the outside world.

[ducasi]

Originally Posted by Andreas

As far as sport, art or science, I think dancing is a sport. It becomes an art when you try to get into it more and can get past the shallow initial approach. As for science, elements of dancing, certain moves, even music, can become science should you feel the desire to break everything down to the last atom and try to find explanations to everything. Still, at all times I will remain sport. I think

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.

[Geordieed]

Sorry just thought of something else. The appreciation of art is very simular. It is all about what it means to the individual not what somebody tells you what it should be. There has always been the debate 'What is art?'

We can be given techniques to improve our painting, sculpting etc. Our efforts might be assessed on so many different levels and it is always a matter of perception and opinion.


Great thread though because I can't see a definate answer just a heathly debate. (Fingers crossed)


Happy painting...

[Sparkles]

Originally Posted by TA Guy

Technique on it's own is useless.

I don't believe this is true. Technique is transferrable, not just between dances but from other sports and art forms too. I know several men who have done matrial arts and go on to be good at dancing beacuse they are able to apply the techniques they already know to the new situation.
Admittedly technique is *more* useful if the person you're dancing with has learnt the same techniques, but as is prooven all over the country every night of the week people with different techniques can dance together happily, and even very well.

Originally Posted by TA Guy

Technique is merely a means to an end. Some of the most technically gifted dancers are the most boring or most mechanical.

And some of the most 'artful' dancers have little or no idea about spacial awareness or human physiology. They're both inappropriate, sweeping generalisations because in both 'categories' there are also good, musical, gifted dancers

Originally Posted by TA Guy

Dance is about moving to music, nothing more, nothing less. A dancer is someone who moves to music.

Someone who is moving to music is dancing, but IMO that doesn't necessarily make them 'a dancer' (but that is just my opinion).

Originally Posted by TA Guy

Likewise, this is not a sport,

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'?

Originally Posted by TA Guy

Of course, there is a big difference between a 'professional dancer', and a 'dancer'.

Yes, this is very true. It takes a lot of committment and dedication to make dancing your life and living - I couldn't do it and wouldn't want to.

[ducasi]

Originally Posted by Geordieed

Good technique can improve us but doesn't necessarily make us a better dancer. Ceroc doesn't teach us how to dance. I apologise if this offends anyone but Ceroc only teaches us moves. It is up to the people doing it to make it into a dance. It has been said before that Ceroc is a framework to which we add the body to and give it form.

I disagree. Ceroc teaches us moves to music. Moving to music is dancing. It might not be good dancing, but it is dancing. In regular classes you'll also find a lot of good technique taught. Maybe not explicitly, but it's in there.

Beyond the regular class nights Ceroc teaches us further technique, things about musicality, and how to adapt moves to the music, etc...

Of course, it takes the person doing the dancing to understand and apply all this to their dancing.

[Gus]

Originally Posted by ducasi

I disagree. Ceroc teaches us moves to music.

Sorry. Disagree. Ceroc(tm) teaches MOVES. It DOES NOT teach musical interpretation, how to use accents, how to chose appropriate moves to appropriate music. At best it may try to show how to dance to the beat, but it often fails. Watch any average Ceroc night and watch the dancers who have only done Ceroc. Want to take a bet as to whether they are dancing to the music or doing moves with music on at the same time? If Ceroc taught dancing then CTA instructors would be taught to be DANCE INSTRUCTORS ... they aren't ... they are taught to teach a series of defined moves (some of which only have 7 beats so how does that fit in with 4 beat music ).

Of course this is not to say that some CTA instructors are not dance instructors through their own experience or perseverance

[bigdjiver]

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'?...

There was a link to a very learned paper posted on the forum a while back (Heavy man, heavy) If I understood the gist corrctly both dancers and sport people tend to get the same endorphin rush from exercise, but sports people tend to be more isolated and competitive whilst dancers tend to be more social and cooperative. (discuss)

[ducasi]

Originally Posted by Gus

Sorry. Disagree. Ceroc(tm) teaches MOVES. It DOES NOT teach musical interpretation, how to use accents, how to chose appropriate moves to appropriate music. At best it may try to show how to dance to the beat, but it often fails. Watch any average Ceroc night and watch the dancers who have only done Ceroc. Want to take a bet as to whether they are dancing to the music or doing moves with music on at the same time?

I guess it's just pure fluke then that people end up dancing at Ceroc nights then... I'm 99% the product of Ceroc, and I'm told that I can dance musically...