There is one choice, 1 vote for IvoryRose's debate

What is Dance? What is Art?

• Avant-Garde is still relevant

  With something as subjective and evolving as dance, or art, or poetry it is important to look at the culture and society to which the particular piece belongs and analyze that way. If the society as a whole tends to view it as a dance or art then it must be defined so, as long as it fits under the larger definition for such. Now while I don't agree that just any hunk of metal is art, or any head bob to a beat is dance, I must say I'm pretty liberal with the definition. This leads me to a place where much of the art or dance I view I don't comprehend and so am left to say I don't appreciate it. I wouldn't however belittle it by not allowing it the title.
  
  His definition, which I have made clear I disagree with is that dance, or art, or poetry and many other subjective matters are defined by what himself cannot do. Now while that is a valid definition at first glance it becomes a bit hazy as it is explored. For what do we make of the dancer who can do several different forms quite well. Is he/she then to say that anyone who can do the same form only as well as them not a dancer, or an artist? Is Michaelangelo to say that no other painter in his style an artist? Is the singer to say that no other singer in their genre a singer? Or Poe to claim that no other short story writer a writer? Of course not. The problem that this definition collides with is it's subjectivity and level of skill, and also the fact that artists often share skill and knowledge. No matter whether a piece of work is original or not, it can often be duplicated by others who are equally as capable, and not only genius's are artists or dancers.
  
  What's your view?

  Voted for by IvoryRose.

  View 5 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    mudgod
    February 28
    Edit | Reply
    There's the rub. When does a singer or painter or dancer become an artist (arteest)? It cannot be just in the definition of the genre because clearly, anyone can perform the actions and yet not be considered an artist.
    
    Consider Michael Jordan. He played the game within the rules that all basketball players must abide to and yet he excelled to the point of artistry. It was a combination of characteristics that propelled him to the top of the sport. Certainly, he possessed an excellent understanding of the rules and he worked within them but, why was he able to exceed the vast majority of his peers? It was the ability to see beyond those that had gone before. It was a combination of imagination, determination, and execution (and certainly no small amount of practice honing those skills). There is a big difference between innovative and imitative and that difference is the attributes listed above. And quite often, if not most often, it is those of average intelligence that possess these attributes.
    
    There are many things I can do. I play guitar for example. Your boyfriend, I'm sure, can sing. It cannot be our lack of ability to perform at any level that determines art. Freddy Mercury was no Botticelli and vice versa but nobody would disagree that they were both considered vocal artists. Superior qualities can always be recognized better by those familiar with the discipline involved.
    
    Personally, I don't think that I have witnessed anyone whom I would consider a great hip-hop artist. But I don't doubt that there will be one. When I see hip-hop dancing (as limited as I might be at coming across it), I see it as pretty limited to some basic spins and poses with the intermittant bops. I can see much room for innovation and have no doubt that there is an innovator waiting to be discovered.
    
    Not much here, but it is my view on it.
    By the way. I am just a run of the mill guitar strummer, but Charo is an artist.
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgpAlKKftG0
  • • 
      IvoryRose
      February 29
      Edit | Reply
      Michael Jackson danced hip-hop, as did Bobby Brown... and those are just some extremely famous examples.
    • • 
        mudgod
        February 29
        Edit | Reply
        I am not too familiar with Bobby Brown (beyond the bad press in the tabloids), but Michael Jackson was certainly an innovator. I never saw him as what I would think of as hip-hop. I think that he was building on the icons of days gone by. Gene Kelly and Fred Astair come to mind. More out of theater and choreography than street and angst. More for the profit than love of the game.
      • • 
          IvoryRose
          March 1
          Edit | Reply
          See this is where the misconceptions about the dance form lie. First of all it's not entirely a street and angst ridden dance form. It's evolved into something quite unique. It started on the streets, sure, but so did much of the hip hop culture and rap wasn't gangsta until well into it's development, in fact it was disco at it's core when it started.
          
          And hip-hop dance though is based in street dancing has several different genres within it. New School tends to be upright and take quite some influence from dancers like Jackson.
          
          On top of which if you want to talk skill traditional hip-hop was break-dancing, and breaking does in fact take a lot of skill.
        • • 
            mudgod
            March 3
            Edit | Reply
            I defer to your obviously, more learned understanding. All of my understanding of the subject is from observance. All of my writing on the subject is simply my opinion. I am sure there are depths that I will never plumb. I demur to your mastery of the subject and look forward to the opportunity of being enlightened.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: