Dance 360 Philippe Bronchtein - Politics of Dancing and The Anthropological Approach

I really enjoyed Ishmael Houston-Jones' article about the politics of dance. As a choreographer, it's an interesting point to acknowledge that the insecurities and societal relationships of your dancers might actually play into how they do the movements, and relate to one another inside of a dance work. I mention the insecurities in particular because of this quote, "In one rehearsal with eight men, seven went to the side of 'More Intelligent' while only one declared himself to belong in the 'not more intelligent' half. The statements 'I consider myself tall' or 'I think that I am overweight' often produce two groups that look indentical in terms of height and weight. Personal perceptions can be deceiving" (13 Houston-Jones). There are several people who are of normal weight who refuse to be lifted because of their insecurities about their weight or height. One person that never gets lifted in a piece (if all the others are getting lifted) creates a very specific effect. I have found that more often than not, the audience will notice.

More importantly was the question of more or less intelligent. Especially when comparing mental capacities against your peers, the reaction of the cast members to one another can completely re-affect the dynamic. Does the group support, console, and try to convince the person who has singled themselves out? Do the people in the group who does consider themselves in the smarter half choose their own personal bottom half? While I understand what this exercise attempts to achieve, I think that asking the wrong questions can actually be quite detrimental to the group dynamic. Some things are better left unsaid......

The article about the anthrological approach was both frustrating and enlightening at times. While I think it is a completely arbitrary and futile effort to try and define art, I think the author clearly and effectively identified some of the things that are commonly found in powerful art. The three things that are described as crucial for art are esthetic, craftsmanship, and meaning. I understand why Art might be boiled down to these three things, but I dispute the notion that all art must have all three. Something incredibly beautiful and well-made that has no meaning can definitely be considered art. For me the most important thing in labeling something as art or not, is how it's creator views it. If the creator considers his/her piece to be art than it is. Whether it is a strong or effective piece is not up to the creator. But thats a whole other story.