"We are seeking to define what is distinctively theatre, what separates this activity from other categories of performance and spectacle." ~ Jerzy Grotowski
Monday, June 25, 2012
Blasphemy
To use the term 'modern dance' as an excuse for bad technique is blasphemy to the art and a slander to the community.
This is such a provocative little nugget/procrastination inspiration...
I also hate how modern dance has become a catch-all category for things that aren't as easy to classify or fall into 'other'.
I'm sorry, performance art isn't modern dance. I see that happen all too often. I'm pretty sure when you are standing on stage drinking orange juice until you puke there is no dance technique involved!
I feel like if a danced piece of choreography is too sloppy to be categorized as ballet/jazz/tap etc it always gets slapped with the modern label too.
And then, this stream of thought (for me, thinking about how set technique defines x.y.z) progresses into modern vs contemporary dance... so I am going to stop my brain before thinking about dance kills any productivity I have left!
You are absolutely correct in where this conversation goes. What makes good art good? Well, make makes modern dance, modern dance? What is the difference between modern and contemporary dance? Is there a difference? Should there be?
Someday I hope that this becomes a quote for which I am credited in publications.
A comment jumping off of these ideas. In a similar vein, I often find the viewer's need to carefully classify art within specific categories daunting for both parties involved. And often equally frustrating as lumping everything under the category of "modern dance."
Example? One of the grants that we applied for in 2010 required that we categorize our work as dance, art, or interdisciplinary. Now, on a normal day, I'd gladly say our work proudly falls under "dance," but this particular project we had in mind was truly a hybrid of video projection, installation, and movement, which made things a little tricky.
When I called the office to clarify, I was told to stay away from listing ourselves as "interdisciplinary." The man advised me to put down dance and minimize the other elements we'd be using. When I asked why, he explained that in the past few years there has been a tremendous surge in the number of applicants applying for that category.
And so this idea of categorizing, coupled with this advice, has to make me think... Why is it that so many artists now find themselves caught in this ultimate drop box? How is it fair to literally discourage artists from expanding across disciplines, by encouraging them to stay in the security of their homebase category instead?
I'm not arguing that too many ideas aren't currently living under the title "interdisciplinary" the same way that too many dance forms are falling under "modern dance." I'm just curious how long our current use of categories can last, when it seems that some of them are bursting at the seams and looking for some much-needed clarification!
The real problem with the labeling issue is the post-modern philosophy of thought. This is similar but not equivalent to the post modern or post-post modern movements in the history of dance. Post modern philosophy rejects the idea of objective or absolute truth. It seeks to define things by individual experience. Yes, individual experience is important, but it can never define truth. An example: When I was a kid, I wondered how we came to our definitions of color. When I see something that is green, how do I know that this is the same 'green' that everyone else sees? How do I know that I'm not really seeing the color blue but have been conditioned to call it 'green' my entire life? The post modernist would say the color does not exist on its own but is only defined as what you see. This means that my conditioning and my perspective define that object as 'green'. What I am saying is that the object has an objective truth. Science (as I found out later in life) can prove what color of light is being reflected and exactly what hues my eye sees within a certain spectrum. This is an absolute truth. Does this change that my perspective could still result in my seeing blue and calling it green? No. Think partial-colorblindness. Thus science has defined the object as being green regardless of my conditioning or perspective (i.e. experience).
What does this have to do with the current conversation? Words mean things. Labels are not a bad thing. Labels give us considerable information and aid in informed decision making. Trends will always form and will always ebb and flow in any discipline. If we continually change our definition of labels, those labels will lose their definition. This is precisely what has happened with modern/contemporary dance.
So, how do we correct this? Education. When someone asks what modern dance is or how contemporary dance is different from modern dance, we must be ready with a consistent answer. This is how you inform audiences. By taking the bold step of declaring what something is, you aid in the definition because there is clarity. This is an area that I've struggled with in the past. I've recently tried to be more bold in giving my definitions. This is also why it boils my blood when an individual presents themselves as something they are not when there is a simple definition for what they are. I think of a particular 'modern dance' company I've seen perform. They clearly are an entertainment-style circus performance in the vein of Cirque du Soleil. I have no problems with this type of performance. They make beautiful work. It is not modern dance. Do not call it modern dance.
Finally, how do you label yourself? I see two scenarios. When you are a new artist on the scene, your strongest ally is precedence. Who's work does your most resemble? How are they labeled? It does not mean that you have to compare yourself to them in promotion, or even in discussion. But this gives you a basis for beginning self-identification. I would say this is the case 95% of the time. The other scenario requires that you truly enter the arena with something unlike anything else known. There is nothing which can rightly be said to be similar to what you do. In this case, I believe prudence requires you to not label yourself. This one is to be left to the public. After all, if you are concerned with a label, I can guarantee that you are not in this category. In fact, I would say this category is defined by lack of concern for label. An important note though, is this lack of concern does not demean the need for a label or the requirement of words and their meanings.
4 comments:
This is such a provocative little nugget/procrastination inspiration...
I also hate how modern dance has become a catch-all category for things that aren't as easy to classify or fall into 'other'.
I'm sorry, performance art isn't modern dance. I see that happen all too often. I'm pretty sure when you are standing on stage drinking orange juice until you puke there is no dance technique involved!
I feel like if a danced piece of choreography is too sloppy to be categorized as ballet/jazz/tap etc it always gets slapped with the modern label too.
And then, this stream of thought (for me, thinking about how set technique defines x.y.z) progresses into modern vs contemporary dance... so I am going to stop my brain before thinking about dance kills any productivity I have left!
You are absolutely correct in where this conversation goes. What makes good art good? Well, make makes modern dance, modern dance? What is the difference between modern and contemporary dance? Is there a difference? Should there be?
Someday I hope that this becomes a quote for which I am credited in publications.
Consider it done! just kidding.
A comment jumping off of these ideas. In a similar vein, I often find the viewer's need to carefully classify art within specific categories daunting for both parties involved. And often equally frustrating as lumping everything under the category of "modern dance."
Example? One of the grants that we applied for in 2010 required that we categorize our work as dance, art, or interdisciplinary. Now, on a normal day, I'd gladly say our work proudly falls under "dance," but this particular project we had in mind was truly a hybrid of video projection, installation, and movement, which made things a little tricky.
When I called the office to clarify, I was told to stay away from listing ourselves as "interdisciplinary." The man advised me to put down dance and minimize the other elements we'd be using. When I asked why, he explained that in the past few years there has been a tremendous surge in the number of applicants applying for that category.
And so this idea of categorizing, coupled with this advice, has to make me think... Why is it that so many artists now find themselves caught in this ultimate drop box? How is it fair to literally discourage artists from expanding across disciplines, by encouraging them to stay in the security of their homebase category instead?
I'm not arguing that too many ideas aren't currently living under the title "interdisciplinary" the same way that too many dance forms are falling under "modern dance." I'm just curious how long our current use of categories can last, when it seems that some of them are bursting at the seams and looking for some much-needed clarification!
The real problem with the labeling issue is the post-modern philosophy of thought. This is similar but not equivalent to the post modern or post-post modern movements in the history of dance. Post modern philosophy rejects the idea of objective or absolute truth. It seeks to define things by individual experience. Yes, individual experience is important, but it can never define truth. An example: When I was a kid, I wondered how we came to our definitions of color. When I see something that is green, how do I know that this is the same 'green' that everyone else sees? How do I know that I'm not really seeing the color blue but have been conditioned to call it 'green' my entire life? The post modernist would say the color does not exist on its own but is only defined as what you see. This means that my conditioning and my perspective define that object as 'green'. What I am saying is that the object has an objective truth. Science (as I found out later in life) can prove what color of light is being reflected and exactly what hues my eye sees within a certain spectrum. This is an absolute truth. Does this change that my perspective could still result in my seeing blue and calling it green? No. Think partial-colorblindness. Thus science has defined the object as being green regardless of my conditioning or perspective (i.e. experience).
What does this have to do with the current conversation? Words mean things. Labels are not a bad thing. Labels give us considerable information and aid in informed decision making. Trends will always form and will always ebb and flow in any discipline. If we continually change our definition of labels, those labels will lose their definition. This is precisely what has happened with modern/contemporary dance.
So, how do we correct this? Education. When someone asks what modern dance is or how contemporary dance is different from modern dance, we must be ready with a consistent answer. This is how you inform audiences. By taking the bold step of declaring what something is, you aid in the definition because there is clarity. This is an area that I've struggled with in the past. I've recently tried to be more bold in giving my definitions. This is also why it boils my blood when an individual presents themselves as something they are not when there is a simple definition for what they are. I think of a particular 'modern dance' company I've seen perform. They clearly are an entertainment-style circus performance in the vein of Cirque du Soleil. I have no problems with this type of performance. They make beautiful work. It is not modern dance. Do not call it modern dance.
Finally, how do you label yourself? I see two scenarios. When you are a new artist on the scene, your strongest ally is precedence. Who's work does your most resemble? How are they labeled? It does not mean that you have to compare yourself to them in promotion, or even in discussion. But this gives you a basis for beginning self-identification. I would say this is the case 95% of the time. The other scenario requires that you truly enter the arena with something unlike anything else known. There is nothing which can rightly be said to be similar to what you do. In this case, I believe prudence requires you to not label yourself. This one is to be left to the public. After all, if you are concerned with a label, I can guarantee that you are not in this category. In fact, I would say this category is defined by lack of concern for label. An important note though, is this lack of concern does not demean the need for a label or the requirement of words and their meanings.
Post a Comment