Wrap Thesis Tsoulou 2003

7/26/2019 Wrap Thesis Tsoulou 2003

1/251

University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick

http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/50522

This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright.

Please scroll down to view the document itself.

Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you tocite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page.
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wraphttp://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap


2/251

Philosophical

Approaches

to

Classical

Ballet

and

Modern

Dance

by

Marina - Georgia Tsoulou

A

thesis

submitted

in

partial

fulfilment

of

the

requirements

for

the

degree

of

Doctor

of

Philosophy in

Philosophy

University

of

Warwick Department

of

Philosophy

September

2003


3/251

To Lysandros

and

Bella

my parents


4/251

Table

of

Contents

Acknowledgernents

.............................................................................................................

Declaration........................................................................................................................I

Abstract

.............................................................................................................................

II

1.

Introduction

....................................................................................................................

1.1

Some

Remarks

n

Methodology

...........................................................................................

1.2.Distinction etween

TheatreDance

and

other

orms

of

Dance

.............................................

1.3.ThePeculiarity

f

Dance

-

Dances

an

Ad

as

elusive

as

t is

great

.

....................................

1.4.

TheArtistic

and

he

merely

Aesthetic

What

makes

a particularmovement

equence

piece

of

dance

ather

han, or

example,

piece

of gymnastics7)

............................................

3

1.5.

The

Notion

of

Art (Good

and

Bad

Art)

................................................................................

5

1.6.

The

Notion

of

Context

........................................................................................................

7

1.7.

The

Notion

of

Tradition(s)

..................................................................................................

9

1.8.FromLa

Sylphide

o Tanztheater

...............................................................................

.....

22

2. The

Creation

of

Dance

-

Choreography

................................................................................

2

2.1.

Physical

ersus

Symbolic

DanceSpace

............................................................................

32

2.2.

Methodology

......................................................................................................................

33

2.3.

Physical

Space

FirstAnalytical

Step)

................................................................................

34

2.3.1.Dance

Space

..................................................................................................................

35

2.3.2.

StageSpace

...................................................................................................................

6

2.3.3.

Movement nalysis

.........................................................................................................

8

2.3.3.1.Movement evelAnalysis

............................................................................................

0

I


5/251

2.3.3.2.

Curved

nd

Straight-and-Angular

ines

.......................................................................

1

2.3.3.3.Symmetrical

nd

Asymmetrical

....................................................................................

1

2.3.3.4.

Focus

...........................................................................................................................

42

2.3.3.5.Turning........................................................................................................................43

2.3.3.6.Floor

Pattern

................................................................................................................

43

2.3.3.7.

Stillness

.......................................................................................................................

4

2.3.4.

On

Physical

Space

.........................................................................................................

5

2.4.

Symbolic

Space

Second

nd

Third

Analytical

Steps)

........................................................

6

2.5.TheActualTransformation

-

HowSymbolicSpaces transformedntoPhysicalSpace

Synthesis)

...............................................................................................................................

53

2.6. The Role

of

the

Choreographer

-

The Role

of

the

Dancer

.................................................

6

2.7. The Role

of

the

Spectator

..................................................................................................

9

2.8. The Notion

of

Communication

...........................................................................................

61

2.9.

Dance

ersus

Everyday-Life

ovement

.............................................................................

62

2.10.Concluding emarks

.......................................................................................................

63

3.

Dance

as

Mimesis imitation/Representation)

......................................................................

5

3.1.

Introduction

........................................................................................................................

65

3.2.

Aft,

Imitation

nd

Representation

.....................................................................................

6

3.2.1.Plato

and

Aristotle

on

Mimesis

........................................................................................

67

3.2.2.

MoreRecent

Approaches

o

the

Theory

of

Art

as

Imitation

.............................................

69

3.2.3.Representation

ersus

mitation

.....................................................................................

2

3.2.4.The Neo-Representational

heory

of

Art

.........................................................................

3

3.3.Dance

and/as

Mimesis

......................................................................................................

7

11


6/251

3.4.

The Dances

nd

Mimesis

..................................................................................................

82

3.5. The

Case

of

Jean-Georges

overre

..................................................................................

86

3.6.

Concluding emarks

...........

..............

..............................

........................................

89

4. Danceas Beauty.....................................................................................................................92

4.1.

Introduction

........................................................................................................................

92

4.2. Beauty

and/or

Grace

..........................................................................................................

93

4.2.1

TheCollapse

f

Transcendental

rguments

n

Science

...................................................

96

4.3. Beauty,

Grace

and

he

Dances

........................................................................................

100

4.4.

Art

and

Beauty

.................................................................................................................

107

4.5.A

FurtherAnalysis

f

Beauty

...........................................................................................

109

4.6. Concluding

emarks

.......................................................................................................

112

5.

Dance

as

Expression

............................................................................................................

115

5.1. Introductory

emarks

......................................................................................................

115

5.2.Aft

and

Expressivism

.......................................................................................................

117

5.3.

Tolstoy s

Account

-

EverydayExpressivism

....................................................................

118

5.4.

Croce sAccount

..............................................................................................................

124

5.5.

Collingwood s ccount

.....................................................................................................

133

5.6.Expressionnd he

Dances

.... ........................................................................................

143

5.7,

Dance

and/

as

Expression

...............................................................................................

146

5.7.1.

John

Martin sAccount

f

Expressive

Modern)

Dance

..............................

..................

148

5.7.2.

Objection

o

Martin s

Account

.......................................................................................

149

5.8.

Concluding

emarks

.......................................................................................................

150

6.Dance

as

(Pure)Form

...........................................................................................................

153

III


7/251

6.1.

ntroduction

.................................................................................................................

53

6.2.

Formalism

...................................................................................................................

56

6.3.Clive

Bell s

Formalism

- Significant

orm

.......................................................................

58

6.4.Neoformalism- Formistheveryshape f content.BenShahn.....................................64

6.5.Form

nd

he

Dances

....................................................................................................

71

6.6.

Dance

s

(Pure)

orm

...................................................................................................

75

6.7.Concluding

emarks

.....................................................................................................

82

7.

Towards

a

Philosophy

of

Dance

..........................................................................................

85

7.1.Introduction

......................................................................................................................

85

7.2.

Dance

as

Language

.........................................................................................................

90

7.3.

The

Question

of

ArtisticMeaning:

Does

Artistic

Meaningie

beyond

he

Sayable?

..........

195

7.4.The Medium

f

Movement

........................................................

.....................................

99

7.5. DanceNotation

................................................................................................................

02

7.6.Analysis

f

Classification

.................................................................................................

04

7.7.

Dance

ersus

Gymnastics

...............................................................................................

08

7.8.

ModernDanceVersusClassical

Ballet

............................................................................

12

7.9.Application

nd

Validation

................................................................................................

16

7.10.

Concluding

emarks

.....................................................................................................

24

Bibliography

and

References

..................................................................................................

28

IV


8/251

Acknowledgements

I

would

ike

o

expressmysincere ratitude

o

my

supervisor

r

Gregory

unt

without

whose

onstant

upport

ncouragement

nd

nsightful

uggestions

he hesis

would ot

be

as

it is. I wouldalso ike o thankeveryonen thePhilosophyepartmentf theUniversityf

Warwick

ith

whom

discussed

his

project s

t developed

nd

whowere

kind

enough

o

read

parts

f

t

especially

rMartinWarner rofessor

tephen

oulgate r

Angela

Hobbs

r

Tim

Thornton rPeterPoellner

nd

Professor ichael untley.

I

thank

also

he University

f

Warwick

nd

n

particular

he

Department

f

Philosophy

for he inancial

upport

hat heyhave

provided

or

me

duringhe

years

of my

esearchswell

as

or he

opportunity

o

present arts f my

work

n front

of wideraudiences.

I

amextremelyrateful

o

JaneHunt

whovery

kindly

ndpatiently roof

ead

he

whole

thesis.

also

hank

MiltiadisMakrymichalos

ho

helped

with

the

drawing

f

the

grids

and

tableshat

appear

n

Chapter

.

Of

the

many

riends

o

whom am

ndebted

or

their

support

nd

who

cannot ll

be

named

here

should

particularly ention

oannisVogiatzisor discussing

ith

me

various

aspects f

the

hesis

nd

or

encouraginge

n times

f

difficulty.

Lastbut

not

east

would

ike

o

thank

my

amily

nd

n

particular

yparents

o

whom

this work is dedicated

or

alwaysbelievingn me. Withoutheir constant upportand

encouragement

ouwouldnot

be

holding

his

book.Special

hanks

o

my

brother

ostis or

being

here

or

meat all

imes.

All

of

the

above-mentioned

eople

ave

made

his

a

better

work

han

t

would

ave

been

without

hem

although

t does

not

ollow

rom

his

act

hat

any

of

them

are esponsible

or

any

remaining

laws;n his amentirely n myown.

V


9/251

Declaration

I

declare

hat

all

he

workpresented

n

his hesis

was

undertaken

y

myself

unless

therwise

acknowledgednthe ext)and hatnoneof theworkhasbeenpreviouslyubmittedorany

otheracademic

egree.

ll

sources

f quoted

nformation

ave

been

cknowledged

y

means

of references.

Marina

-

Georgia

soulou

September

003

vi


10/251

Abstract

My

primary

concern

n

this

thesis

is

to

develop

a

framework n

which

classical

and

modern

dance

can

be

analyzed

and

assessed

n

philosophical

erms.

This

should not

be

understood

s

an

endeavour

o

createa

system

of

valuesaccording

o

which

dance

should

be

criticized.What is being attempteds to describeand characterize ancewith the tools

provided

y different

aesthetic

heories.Moreover

ance,

and especially

allet due

o

its

more

solid

and concrete

structureand

form), s

used

as

a

test

-

p6aavo

vasanos)

n Greek

-

to

help

discern

he

limitations

f

existing

aesthetic

heories.At

the

same

ime

he

different

riteria

that

each

heory

puts

orward

o

identify

a

work

of art

are

related

o

the

notion

of movement,

which

s

central

o

dance.This

process

not only enables

us

to distinguish

he

elements

f

this

complex

orm

of

human

action,

but

also

becomes

he

starting

point

for

the

elaboration

f

a

reconfiguration

f aesthetic concepts

that

will

enable

a

sophisticatedanalysis

of

the

phenomenonf

dance.

The

underlying uestion

hroughout

s

What

makesa

particularmovement

equence

piece

of

dance

rather

than, for

example,

a

piece of gymnastics?

complemented

y the

question

What

makesan everyday

ife

movement

dance

movement?

These

ssues

are

addressed

y

considering

ow

the

variousaesthetic

heories

can

help

us

make

he

above

distinctions. hedifferent

orms

of

dance

are

correlatedwith

he

aesthetic

heories

presented.

The first

notion

consider

n

this

context

s

mimesiswith

special reference

o

Jean-

Georges

Noverre's

account

of

dance,

which

has its

roots

n

Aristotle's

Poetics.Secondly

consider

he

notionof

beauty

-

its independence

rom

suchnotionsas

purposiveness',

ts

lack

of

'interest'-

as analysed

n Kant's

Critique

of

Judgment.

he

expressive

lementof

dance s

explored

n the

context

of

R.

G. Collingwood's

xpressivism

nd

JohnMaftin's

nflection

f

it

in

relationo dance.Attentiono movementeadsdirectlyo thenotionof form,which s explored

in dialogue

with

Andn evinson

nd

Margaret

H'Doubler.

The thesis

concludes

by

sketching

an

outline

of a

new way

of

approaching,

understanding

nd

hence

potentially venexperiencing

ance

as

a

viewer).

Dance

s

a carrier

of

a multiplicityof

meanings

with various contents.

In

the

majority

of cases

a

dance

performance eeks

o

communicate

message

o

an

audience.

It is

being

suggested

hat

dance

constitutes

a

type

of

language,

a

communicational

ystem, which

has

mimetic,

expressive nd

formal

elements.

The

notionof

language

s

understood

n

later

Wittgenstein

terms.

t is

argued

hat

dance

comprises

'form

of

life. The

elements f

this

system

are

facial

expressions,movements f

hands

andarms,shiftingof the body;all thesereveal

o

us

the

qualityof

experience

nd

feelings

of

the

moving

persona.

Dance

should

be

understood

nd

appreciated

n

this

particular ontext.

Vil


11/251

... Youhaveo lovedancingo

stick

o it. It

gives

ou

nothing

ack,

no

manuscripts

o

store

away,no

paintings

o

showon

walls

andmaybe

ang

n

museums,

o poems

o

be

printed

andsold,

nothing

ut

hat

single

leeting

moment

henyou

eel

alive.

t

is

not

or

unsteady

souls.

And

hought

appeals

hroughhe

eye

o the

mind,

he

mind

nstantly

ejects

ts

meaning

unless

he

meaning

s betrayed

mmediately

y

the

action.

The

mind

s

not convinced

y

kinetics

lone,

he

meaning

ust

be

clear, r

he

anguage

amiliar

nd

eadily ccessible.

Merce

Cunningham

I


12/251

I.

Introduction

The

primary

oncern f

this

thesis

s

to

develop frameworkn

which

classical

nd

modern

ance

an

be

analyzed ndappreciated

n

philosophical

erms.

This

should

ot

be

understood

s

an endeavour

o

create

system

f

values

ccording

o

which

dance

ould

be

criticized.

What

s being

attempted

s

to

describe

nd characterize

ance

with

the tools

provided

ydifferent

esthetic

heories.

Moreoverance,

nd

especially

allet

due

o

ts

more

solid

andconcretetructurend

orm),

s

used

s

a

test

-

A (7avK

vasanos)

n

Greek

-

to

help

discern

he

imitations

f existing esthetic

heories.

At

the

same

ime

he

various

onditions

that

each

heory

uts

orward

o

identify

work

of art are

related

o the

notion f

movement,

which

s

central

o

dance.

his

process otonlyenables s

o

distinguish

he

elements

f

this

complex

orm

of

human

ction,

ut

also

becomes

he

starting oint

or

the

elaboration

f a

reconfiguration

f aesthetic oncepts

hat

will enablea

sophisticated

nalysis

of

the

phenomenonfdance.

It

should

e

noted

hat

he

philosophical

pproach

o

dance

presented

n the

current

thesis

s

simply

esthetical

nd

notontological.

he

author

s

aware

f

the

variety

f

nteresting

issueshat

would risewerewe

o

follow

phenomenological

ine

of exploration,

ut

his

s

not

being

ntroduced

ere,

or

reasons

f

space

and

ocus.This

area

s

enormous

nd could

constitute

he heme

f

a completely

ifferent

esearch

roject.

My

underlyinguestion

hroughout

s 'What

makes

particular

ovement

equence

pieceof

dance

ather

han,

or

example,

piece

of

gymnastics?complemented

y

the

1

As

a

matter

f

act

he

philosophical

xplorations

f

he

art

of

dance ave

o

ar been

mainly henomenological.

The

main epresentative

f

his

approach

s

Maxine

heets-Johnstone

n ThePhenomenology

f

DanceMadison

and

Milwaukee:

niversity

f

Wisconsin ress,

1966)

and

n her

collection

f

essays

lluminating

ance,

(Lewisberg,ewYork:Bucknell niversityress, 984). hehasalsowritten numberf articles n hesubject

The ssues

oncerning

ime,

pace nd

he

body

hat

arise

hrough

uch

an

approachre

very

nteresting

ut all

outside

he

scope

f

he

current

hesis.

Moreover,

s

will

become

bvious,

ur

approach

ere s

analytical.

2


13/251

question

What

ransforms

neveryday

ife

movement

nto

a

dance

movement?

These

ssues

are

being

addressed

y

considering

ow

he

criteria

such

as expression,

orm,beauty)

hat

the

various

esthetic

heories

ut

orward

or

he

distinctionetween

rt

and

non-art an

help

usmakehesedistinctions.hese riteria/abstractedotions re hen elatedo thedifferent

dance

enres

nd

he

extent

o

which

hey

constitute

mportant

lements

f

various

ypes

of

dances

s discussed.

Towards

his,

t is

suggested

n

Chapter

that

what

akes

place

n

the

process

f

creation

nd

performance

f a

dance

s

a

transformation

f

whatwecall

he

symbolic

pace

f

the dance the ideas

and

feelings

of

the

choreographer)

o physical

pace

thespecific

movementsxecuted

y

the

dancers)

nd consequently

he

reverse

ransformation

f

the

physical

pace

o

symbolicpace

by

he

spectators

-

in

otherwords,

o the

nterpretation

nd

understanding

f

dance.

The

elements

hat

constitute

he

context n

which

dancebecomes

intelligible

realso

highlighted.t is

argued

ater n

the

hesis

hat

a major

ontribution

o

the

distinctionetween

ance

ndeveryday ovementnd

dance

nd

gymnastics

s

the

different

symbolic

pace f eachof

these

ctivities.

Chapter

deals

with

he

first

notion onsidered

n

this

context,

mimesis, ith

special

reference

o

Jean-Georges

overre s

ccount f

dance,

which

has its

roots

n

Aristotle s

Poetics.

he

second otion,onsidered

n

Chapter ,

is beauty

-

its

ndependence

rom

such

notions

as

purposiveness

nd

its

lack

of

interest

-

as

analyzed

n

Kant s

Critique

of

Judgment.

he

expressivelement

f

dance s

discussedn

the

context

of

Collingwood s

expressivism

nd

JohnMartin s

nflection

f

it

in

relation

o

dance

Chapter ).

Attentiono

movement

eads

directly

o the

notion

of

form,

which

s

explored

n

dialogue

with

Andr6

LevinsonndMargaret DoublerChapter). The hesis oncludesyoutlining newwayof

3


14/251

approaching,

nderstanding

nd,

hence,

potentially

ven

experiencing,

ance.

Dance s

a

carrier f

a

multiplicity

f meanings

ithin arious

ontexts.

n

the

majority

f

casesa

dance

performanceeeks

o

communicatemessage

o

an audience.

t is being

suggested

hat

danceconstitutes typeof language, communicationalystem,whichhas mimetic,

expressive

nd

formal

elements.

The

notion

of

language

here

is

understood

n

later

Wittgensteinianerms.

t is

argued

hat

dance

omprises

'form

of

life

The

atter

onsists

n

the

variety

of elements

hat

are

discussed

hroughout

he thesis,

suchas

the

abstracted

notions

f

mimesis,

eauty,

orm

and

expression

s wellas

he

acial

xpressions,

ovements

of

hands

ndarms,

music,

ighting,

ostumes

ndscenery;

ll

hese

eveal

o

us

he

quality

f

experience

hat

we

call

dance.Dance

hould

e

understood

nd appreciated

n

the

context

which

s

created

y

all

these

elements,

hich

at

the

same

ime

constitute

ndications

f

the

distinction etween

ance

and othermovementctivities, uchas

gymnastics.

ables

nd

gridsare also

used

n

Chapter

to illustrate

he

family

esemblance':

he

way

he

different

dance

enreselate

o

eachother

and

areall partof

the

orm

of

ife

of

dance.

Within

he

confines f

the hesis his

approach

o

dance

an

be

only

a preliminary

tudy.

In

another

work

intend

o

create

a

more

developed

onceptual

ramework

or

this

dance

language'

n

the

ight

of

a

deeper

ndmoreextensive nalysis f

the

concepts

nd

heories

sketched bove.Thepresentworkconstitutes n analytical ssayout of whichdifferent

'philosophies

f

dance'

an

be

generated.

4


15/251

1.1

Some

Remarks

n

Methodology

Webegin

he

philosophicalxploration

f

dance,

y

accepting

he erm

dance

s

t

is

usedand understoodn everydayanguagewithoutbeingexplicitly efined;whether, f

course,

ance

an

be ullydefined,s

an altogether

ifferent

uestion

hat

will

concern

s

ater

in

the hesis.

An

mplicit efinition

f

dance

anonly

be

givenat

this

point

by describing

ts

different

spects, amely

ts

creation

i.

e. choreography),

ts

execution

i.

e.

performance)

nd

its

aesthetic

ppreciation

nd

critique.

Distinctions

ndclassifications

hat

are made

n

the

sectionsofollow lsocontributeoour

understandingf

the erm.This

way

he ermdance s

at

east

learenough

o

serve

sa working

asis

or

he

ntended

nalysis.

What

we are

trying o

do

with

the

expositionf

the

various

esthetic

heories

s

to

provide

clarification

f

the erm

and

consequently

f

the

phenomenon

f

dancehat

will

ead

us

to

a

better

understandingf

the

atter.

As

Rudolf

Camap

would

say

we

are

aced

with

a

problem

f explication.

We

try to

describedance n

a

way

that

will

contribute

o

its

understanding

ndpotentially

ts

appreciation

ith

he

help

of

the

criteria/indications

ithwhich

the

discussed

heories

f

art provide

s.

For

example

n

ouranalysis

f

formalism

e

discuss

the

notion f

significant

orm

put

orward y

CliveBell

as a

criterion

or

art

and

we go

urther,

examining hether

significant

orm

can

help

us

distinguish

ance

rom

non-dancend

whether,

more

enerally,

orm

s the

most

undamental

haracteristic

f

dance.

or

his

eason

we

are

not

nterestedn

giving n

exhaustive

ccount f

the

heories.

We

present

hem

n

order

to

abstract

he

proposedharacteristics

f

the

works

of

art andsee whether

hese

can

be

applied

o

dance

and contribute

o

the

distinction

hat

we want

o

draw

between

ance

I

Rudolf

Carnap,

ogical

Foundation

f

ProbabiW Chicago:

niversity

f

Chicago ress,1962)

h.

1,

On

Explication .

5


16/251

movementsnd

everyday

ife

movementsn

he

one

hand,

nd

between

piece f

dance

nd

a

pieceof gymnastics,n

the

other.

Such

an approach

oes

not

provide

s

with

an exact

definition

f

dance

nor

with

a

comprehensive

uideline s

to

how dance

should

be

appreciated;tonlygivesus ndicationshatcancontributeothedistinctionsewantodraw.

In

otherwords,

here

s

no

clear-cut

nswer.

All

hat

s

claimed

s

that hrough

escribing

nd

characterizing

ance,

nd

n

particular

theatre

ance,

we can

acquire

better

understanding

f

the

phenomenonf

dance

without

aiming t or evenattemptingn

extensive

efinition.

s

will

be

argued

n

the

inal

chapter f

thethesis,

ur understandingf a

term

can

be

satisfactory

ithout

definition. ut

still

we

should

e

able

o

determine

hether urexploration

as,

at

least

o

some

extent,

uccessful.

The

capacity

y

the

endof

the

hesis

o

distinguish

ith espective

ertainty

etween

piece

of

gymnasticsnd

a piece

of

dance

as

well as

between

ance

movementnd

everyday-life

movement

ill

be

a

measure

f

success

n

our

ask.

1.2.

Distinction etween

heatre

Dance

nd other

orms

of

Dance

Before

we

begin

our exploration,

fundamental

larificationeeds

o

be

made:

n

this

projectwe aresolely

nterested

n

analysinghat

s

calledheatre

ance.

rancis

parshott4

introduceshis

erm

or

the

sakeof

the

distinction

hat

ollows

-

it

refers

mainly

o

classical

3

This

can

be

compared

ith

he

way

Carnap

resents

he

problem f explication

n

the

caseof scientific

erms.

...

f

a

solution

or

a problem

f

explication

s

proposed, e cannot

ecide

n

an exactway

whether

t

is

rightor

wrong.

trictly

peaking,

he

question

hether

he

solution

s

right

or

wrong

makes

o

good ense

ecause

here

is

no

clear-cut nswer.

he

questionhould

ather

e

whether

he

proposed

olution

s

satisfactory,

hether

t is

more

satisfactory

han

another ne,and

he

like. (Carnap, 962,

p.

4).

According

o

Carnap

here

are

our

requirements

or

an

adequatexplication:

.

similarity

.

exactness

.

ruitfulness.

implicity

although

his

s

of

lessermportance).

4

Francis

parshott,

Measured

ace

-

Toward PhHosophicalnderstanding

f

the

Arts

of

Dance

Toronto:

University

f

Toronto ress,

995).

6


17/251

ballet

and modern

ance.

The

philosophical

nderstanding

f

the

phenomenon

f

dance n

general

ould

ave

been

he

subject f a completely

ifferent

roject.

As

a consequence,

t is

important

o

illustrate

s clearly

as possible

he

distinction etween

heatre

ance

and

he

other

orms

of

dance,

uchas social

dance,

olklore

r

religious

ance.

Dance

an

exist

outside

he

context

of

art: people

dance

on

varioussocial occasions,without

being

professional

ancers.

Dance

s

a

kind

of social

behaviour. ance

an

also

be

related

o

religious eremonies

nd can

be

part

of ritual practices.

Many

eligions

ncorporate,

or

example,ircular

ances,

hich

mitate

he

cosmos

ndaresaid

o

depict

he

harmony

nd

thedeterminismf a well-organizedniverse.Ofcourse,his ypeofdancesdistinctrom he

theatre

ance

hat

we

are

nterested

n, despite

he

act

hat

elements f such

eligious

nd

ceremonial

ance

ractices

an

be

raced

n

ballet

performances.

hese

lements

hen

used

in ballets

ose

heir

original

meaning s

they

are

ncorporated

nd presented

n

a

different

context.

Some

echoes

of

their

primary

ignificance,

hough,

mightsurvive.

For

example,

kneeling,

n he

majority

f cases,

s

a signof

prayer

r submission.

Furthermore

e

areexplicitly

nterestedn

exploring

hilosophicallylassical

allet

nd

modern

ance

mainly s

performed

n

stage.

And

whenwe

say stage we

o

not

only efer

o

a

theatre

tage

but

to

anything

hat

s

used

as a

stage,sincemanycontemporary

ance

performances

ake

place

n

parks, n

the

street,

n industrial

ites

or other

sitesappropriately

converted.

From

he

above

onsiderations

t

should

e

clear

hat

we

are primarily

oncerned ith

dance

s performancendnot

as choreography.

The

notion f performance

s

central

o the

5

e.

g.

whirling

ervishes.

6HoweveraneWinearlsn Choreography

-

TheArt

of

theBody,AnAnatomy

f

ExpressionLondon:ance

Books,

990)

tates

...

view

he

choreographers

rt also

as

a performance.

(

p.

106).

There

recontradictory

7


18/251

proposed

ayof

appreciating

nd

understanding

ance,

nd

he

process f

the

creation

f

dance

nd

he

oleof

the

choreographer,

hich

s

being iscussed

n

a

separate

hapter f

the

thesis,

s includedn

order

o

encompass

he

aft

of

dancen

its

wholeness.

n

addition,

he

descriptive

ccount f

the

creative ctivity

f

choreography

s

presented ith

he

aspiration

f

enlightening

he

form

of

ife

of

dance

nd

o

support ursuggested

ay

of approaching

t.

7

We

need

also

o

state

hat

we

are

nterested ere

n

the

dance

orms

of

the

Western

world

andnot

n

African

r

Asian

ones.

This

distinctions

complementary

o the

irst

one,

The

fundamental

ifference etween

Western

nd

Eastern ances,f

we are entitled

o

sucha

dichotomy,

ies n

their

relation

o tradition, astern

ance

s

closely onnected

o tradition,

religion ndmetaphysical

oncerns

-

in

the

eastern

enseof

the

erm,

.

e.

the

possibilityf

reincarnation,

r

ife

after

death

-

and

characterized

y

stability, hereas

Western

ances

the

product

f

the

artistic

expression

f

the

choreographer,

culturaleventof

each epoch,

characterizedrimadlyychange, ither radual r abrupt.

A

more

general uestion

hat

arises

within

he

ramework

f

this

research nd equires

an

answer

s

In

what

does

a philosophy

f

dance

onsist?

A

straightforward

nswer

ould

be

The

philosophy

f

dance

consists

asically

f attempts

o

make

senseof

dance

.8

This

essentially

ummadzes

hat

is being

attempted

n

this

thesis,

namely

o

descdbe

nd

characterize

ance,

and

particulady

heatredance n

a

way

that

will

contribute

o

our

understanding

nd

hus

our

appreciation

f

t.

views

n whether

he

choreographers

ct

can

be

seen

as

a

performance.

he

view

aken

here

s

that

as

ar

as

ballet s

concerned

he

choreography

s

distinct

rom

he

performance,

hough

n

terms

of

modern

ance,

nd

especially

n

the

caseof

improvisation

he

distinctions

not entirely

lear,since

he

creation

f a

dance

s

integrated

ith

ts

executions

he wo

happen

lmost

imultaneously.

Consequently,henhe ermdances usednthis hesis,t should eassumedhat t referso dance s

performed

to the

product

f

he

choreographyandnot

o the

creative rocess

nvolvedn

producing

dance

-

i.

e.

choreographyunless therwisetated.

horeography

s discussed

n

Chapter

.

8

Sparshott,

995,

.

3.

S


19/251

1.3.The

Peculiarity

f

Dance

-

Dances

an

Art

as

elusiveas

t

is

great

It s

puzzling

hat

he

various esthetic

heories

ut

orward

ver

he

years

ave

ailed

o

incorporate

ance

n

their

account.

first

approach

o

hese

ssues

will

ead

us

o

an

answer f

the

sort:

dance

s

not

ike

he

otherarts:

dances

unique.

What

differentiates

ance

rom

he

other

orms

of ad

so

deeply

s

that

here

s

an ambiguity

oncerning

he

artistic alue

of

a

dance

erformance.

Dance

an exist

within

a

varietyof circumstances,part

rom

he

artisticone.

0We

mentionedocial, eremonial

nd eligious

ance. he

confusion,

or

example,

etween

ocial

and

heatre ances

oneof

the

most

ommon.

ance

s

a

human

ractice

ppears

n

many

aspects

f

our

ife

and

he

context

n

which

t

emerges

nfluencests

characteristics.

t is

very

closely elatedo humanactionsince ts fundamentallements movement.Dance s

pervasive

nd

ntrinsic o

our

human

way

of

being n

a way

that

other

arts

are

not', as

Sparshott

loquently

uts

t. At

the

same

ime there s

controversy

s

far

as

dance

s

concerned.

espite

ts amiliarity

-

because

f

oureveryday ovement

-

it

is

at

the

same

ime

elusive.

2

So

whatmakes particular

ovement

dance

movement?

5'

This s

the

irst

concern

hat

Francis

Sparshott

aises

n his

entry

Dance'n

MichaelKelly

et

al eds.,

The

Encyclopedia

fAesthetics

Oxford:

xford

niversityress,

998).

In

general,

wo hings

make

ance istinctive

as an

object

f

nquiryn

aesthetics.

ne

s

he

complete

uman

resence

f

he

dancern

the

dance;

he

other

s

the

elation f artistic

ance

o

rituals

ndceremonies

f

direct

ocial

ignificance.

(p.

91).

10

Sparshott

ifferentiates

ocial

ance

rom

heatre

ance

y

making

distinctionetweendance,

onceived

n

a givensocial ontext

s

a

specific rt a specializedet of

skills

hat

have

o

be learned

nd

developed,

conjoined

in

most

ases)

o

an

nstitution

o

which ne

stands

n

some

efinite

orm

of membership

elation,

nd,

on heotherhand, ancing,formofactivityhatanyone anengagen. (Sparshot 995,pp. 9-40).

11

bid,

p.

6.

12

ts

elusiveness

s

also

elated

o

he

act

hat

a

dances

never erformed

n

he

same

wayno

matter

ow

hard

the

dancers

ry.

This

point

s urther iscussed

npp.

1-12

elow.

9


20/251

There

are at

least

wo

moreelements,

hich

n differentiatingance

rom

otherad

forms,

make

ts

casea peculiar

ne,

The

materials

f other

orms

of ad, suchas

painting,

sculpturer architecture,

hat s to

say,

he

visualarts

are

ifeless

bjects, amely

olours,

marble,

ronze,

ocks

etc.

The

artist

has

hem

n herdisposition

ndshe

can

do

whatever

s

naturally

ossible,

ith

hem.

By

using

hem

n

all sortsof

ways,

by

combining

hem

and

by

altering

heir

natural ppearance,

he

can

achieve

he

effect

hat

she

s

ookingor, n

order

o

create

er

work.

The

case

of

dance s different. he

actual

material

f

the

creator

s human

beings,

who,of

course, annot

e

entirelymastered,s

they

are

ndividuals

ith

heir

own

distinct

haracteristicsndpersonalities.

he

material

s

given,and

he

choreographer

as

o

workwith

t. The

problem

f course

s

not

hat

he

potential

f

the

dancerss

limited;

o

s

the

potentialf

the

various

ifeless

materials.

hats mportants

that he

choreographer

s

dealing

with

iving,

onscious,

uman

eings,

ith

heir

ownpersonalities

nd

eelings.n

otherwords,

thecreation,hechoreographicpecification,sactivelynterpretedy hedancers,uiteunlike

paint ncanvas.

Admittedly dance

erformance

as

more

similarities

o

a music

performance

han o

paintings

n

an aft gallery;music nd

dance

reperforming,

otvisual,

ds.

The

composerf

musicencountersimilar roblems

o

those

of

the

choreographer.

er

primary

materials re

the

musical

ones,

he

syllables

nd

he

potentialitiesf

the

musical

nstruments,ut the

musical iece an

only

be

perceived

ndappreciatedhenperformed;

he

responsibility

or

the

actualoutcome f

its

performanceests upon

he

competence

nd

the

talent

of

the

individual

usiciansnd

heir

conductor.

large

part

of

what

we perceive

s a

musical

iece

has

to

do

with

its

execution, lthoughas

with

the

case of

dance (performance

nd

10


21/251

choreography),

t

can

be

argued

hat the

process

f composition

s

also art.

3

The

main

difference

etween

hese

wo

performingrts

s

that

a music erformance

s

technical/

rtificial,

while

ance

s

ultimately

rounded

n

everyday

ovement.

The

second

lement,

hich

ifferentiatesancerom

many

ther

orms

f ad,

s

that

we

do

not

have

an

accurate

ecord f

dance.

Every

erformance

s

different

rom

another.

his,

of

course,

s

notonly

rue

or

dance

ut

or

all performingrts,

distinguishing

hem

rom

he

visual

ads.

Dance

s

not

something

tatic,

t

constantly volves nd changes.

here

are always

different

erformancesf

the

same

dance

piece.

4 With

a

painting,

or

example,

he

work

s

always

here

or

us whenwe

try

to

analyze

ts

distinct

lements

nd

givean

nterpretation.

t

does

notchange;

nlyour perspective

ay

be

modified.

ut

his s

not

rue

or

dance.Even

when

a

dance

performance

s

recorded,

he

taped

material

s

not a

reliable

epiction

f

the

actualperformance,

ince

he

camera

nly

recordswhat

s

being

performed

rom

a

certain

angle ndcannotaptureheoverall ffect.Evenfthecamera ereableocaptureheactual

performance

n

all

its

aspects,

he dance

hanges

rom

one

night

o the

next.

The

matinee

performance

an

be different

rom

he

evening ne

andso

on,

Every

erformance

s

different

from

another; ach

performance

s

unique.

Dance

xists

at a perpetual

anishing

oint

or

at

the

moment

f

its

creation

t is

gone'15.

e

shallnot elaborate

n

the

reasons hy

these

changes

ccur

or onwhich

actors

an

nfluence

dance

erformance,

6The

mportant

ssue

See

also

ootnote

,

above.

14

Consider

he

example

of

Marius

Petipa's Swan Lake'

set

to

Tchaikovsky's

music:

he

ballet s

still

being

performed

based

on

the

original choreography

y Petipa,

but there

are

certainly

differences

and

variations

betweenhe first and he contemporaryersionsof its performance,part romthefact that thereare alsonew

a

,

pproachesichoreographies

o the

same

narrative

ndmusic.

MarciaB.

Siegel,

At

the

Vanishing oint

New

York:SaturdayReviewPress,1972)

16

Most

of

these

actors

are

discussedn Chapter

2.

II


22/251

here s

that

in

the

case

of

dance

he

objectof

our aesthetic

udgmentss in

constant

modification.

7

But

what

about

music?

s dance

ot

similar

o

music

n

his

espect?

he

caseof

music

-

classical

music

s

the

obvious omparison

ere

-

is

significantly

ifferent

ecause

he

musical

vocabulary

s

better

establishednd

wider anging.

here s

a

notational

ystem

n

music

widely

ccepted

hat

allows

s

o

compare

ifferent

erformances

f

the

samepieceagainst

the

original core.

n

that

sense

we

can

argue

hat

a score

s

an

accurate

ecord

f music.

Moreover,

e

can ecord particular

usic erformanceithout

ncountering

he

problem

f

different

amera ngles

nd

ncomplete

isual overage.

8

At this

point

we

canpose

gain

he

question

Whats the

philosophyf

dance

ll about?

and

he

answer, iven

o

us

by FrancisSparshotts 'We ook

now

not

what

ed

people

o

dance,

hich

s history,

or

what

psychic

orces

mpel

hem

o

do

so,

which

s

science,

ut

why

dancessomethinghatmakesenseodo.19

17

Graham

cFee, ndeistandinganceLondon:

outedge, 992)

lso

makes

his

point.

First

n

general,

he

idea

of performingrt

mplies

he

possibilityf a number

f performances.

econd,

he

work

of

art

s

encountered

only

when

neattends

performance,

or

only

hen

s

he

work

nstantiated.

n

particular,

ne

s

notconfronted

with

a

work

of art

when

neconfrontsnlya

notated core

r

a

film

or a

video.

... In

contrast

o

visual

rts

ike

painting nd

sculpture,

hich reatemporal,

erformingrts

ike

dance

ake

ime,

not

ust

n the rivial

ense

hat

it

takes

ime o

seeor

experience

hem,but

n

the

moreprofoundense

hat

hey

entrally

nvolve

vents, hich

are

n

he

low

of

ime,

ccurTingt

a

particular

oment

ndso

on.

Moreover,

isual

rtsare

ixed,

s

t

were,

fter

their

creation, hereas

erforming

rts

are

nherently

ndetermined

y

heir

creation:

hey

must

be brought

nto

completenessas

he

name uggests

-

by

being

erformed.

(pp.

8-9).

One

could

argue

hat

istening

o

a

recordedmusicperformance

s

not

the

sameas

attending

he

same

performanceiveandhatheresalwaysomething issingn he ecording,o n hissensewecannotave n

accurateecord

f music ither,

ut

at

east

we

cansay

hat

we

can

have

a

more

ccurate

ecord f

music

han

of

dance.

'9

Sparshott,995,

A

12


23/251

1.4. The Artistic

and

the

merely

Aesthetic (What

makes

a particular

movement

sequence

piece

of

dance

ather

han,

or

example, pieceof

gymnastics?

)

A finaldistinction

-

admittedly

ne

hat

may

bedifficulto delineate

recisely which

needs

o

be

made

efore eginning

ur

nvestigation

f aesthetic

heories

n

relation

o

dance,

is

between

he

notion

f

the

artistic nd

hat

of

the

aesthetic.

raham

McFee20

istinguishes

judgmentshat

we

make

about

worksof aft

intentionally

reated

y

man

rom hose hat

we

make

aboutobjects

hat

are naturally

eautiful,

r aboutnaturally raceful

movements.

he

first udgments

re

characterizeds

artistic,

he

secondas

aesthet ,

1

This

reflectsour

appreciationf

two

different

ypes

of objects: ur appreciationf works f

art

s

not

he

same

as

our

appreciationf otheraesthetic bjects:

unsets,

irdsong

r

firework isplays.

McFee

explores

his

distinction

s

ollows:

...

It

makesa

difference

hetherwe see

the

object

before

us underconcepts

appropriate

o

art

(that s,

make

an artistic

udgment

bout

t)

or under

concepts

appropriate

o

the

merely esthetic.

he

clearestway

o

articulate

his

distinction

sharply

s

to

consider

case

where spectatoronfronts

work

of

art

but,

hrough

lack

of

knowledge

r

understanding,

rings

o

bear

on

t

merely

estheticoncepts.

And

his

means

hat he

spectator

s

not

able

o

bring

o

bear

on

that

object

he

concepts ppropriate

o

the

appreciationf

art; concepts uch as

form,

style,

meaning.

ypically,

istening

o

music

nvolves

ringing

o

bear ust

these

notions:

form,

onal

tructure,

nd,

perhaps,

sense

f content.

dditionally,

e

ypically

ee

the

music s

he

product f

someartist.

By

contrast, ur

appreciationf

the

beauty

ofbirdsongssimplyaestheticppreciation.2

20

McFee,

992.

21

DavidBest

Philosophy

nd

HumanMovementLondon:

eorge

Allen

and

Unwin,

1978)

also

draws

a

distinction

etween

he

artistic

nd

he

aesthetic.

e

contributes

o

the

discussion

ver

what

makes particular

movement

equence piece f

dance

ather

han

a piece f gymnastics

y

saying

hat'unlike

ance,

n

these

sports

here

s

stillanexternallypecifiable

imeven

hough,

or nstance,

t

is impossible

ntirely

o

specify

hat

the

gymnast

s

trying o

achieve part

rom

he

way

n

which

e s

rying o

achieve

t

Perhapshis

s

what

ome

physical

ducationistsre

getting t

when

hey

say, ather

aguely,

hat

a

distinctionetween

ymnastics

nd

dance

s

hat

he

ormers

objective

hile

he

atters

subjective

p.

13).

"

McFee,

992,

.

92.

13


24/251

It

seems,

n

a sense,

hat

when

a

work

of ad

is treated

s merely esthetic,

t

is disparaged,

because

he

spectator

s hereby

ailing

o

acknowledge

he

details

rucial

o

its

meaning.

Thisdistinction

s

important

ince

we are

nterestedn

exploring

ance

as

art,

and

not

danceas a socialor religious ctivity.t alsohelpsus answerhequestion hatmakes

series

f movementspiece f

dance

ndnot

gymnastics

y

pointing

o the

actor

f

intention

in

the

process f artistic

reation s

well as

the

mportance

f context,which

ndicateshe

understanding

ne

brings

o

a

dance

performance.

avid

Best

supports

his

view

by

claiming

that

gymnastics

o

not produce erformance

ust

for

artisticpleasure s

dance

does.

The

pleasure

hat

one

maygain

rom

gymnastics

s

incidental

o

its

main

purpose,

ymnastics

re

only

concerned

ith

displayingechnical

ompetencend

accuracy

n

movement.

his

may

partly

e

rue

about

allet

swell

but

his

s

not

he

primary

im.

The

significance

f

the

distinction

ketched bovewill

be discussed

gain

n

Chapter ,

in

relation

o

Kant s

notion

of

disinterestedeauty . t

is

also relevant

o the

underlying

questions

f

the

present

hesis,

amely

he

relation

etween ance

movementnd

everyday

movementnd

between

ance

andgymnastics.

hen

we

say someone

moves racefully

even

when

hey

are

not

dancers

-

aesthetic

ppreciation

s

involved,

ut

our

appreciation

s

artisticwhenwe

say

the

same

hing

about

dancersn

a

dance

performance.

he

contexts

withinwhichhegracefulmovementsakeplace elpusdistinguishetweenhenotionsf the

artistic nd

he

aesthetic.

14


25/251

1.5.The

Notion

of

Art

(Good

and

BadArt)

Before iscussinghenotion f context wehouldirstconsiderhe ermart.Sincewe

are

arguing

hat

heatre

ance

s

a

form

of

art

we

need

o

saysomething

bout ft

n

general.

Consideration

f what

constitutes

rt

is

central

o

aesthetics nd

t is the

question

hat he

various

heories

f

art

attempt

o

answer

y

suggestingcriterion

hat

will

help

us

distinguish

between

rt andnon-aft.

or

example,

live

Bell s

ormalism

uggested

hat

significant

orm

is

the

common

haracteristicf all

works

of

ad and

he

criterion

hat

distinguishes

hem

rom

other

estheticbjects.

As

will

become

bvious

n

the

ollowing

hapters

3-6),

all

the heories

hat

provide

s

with

a

definition

f aft

based

n a single

riterion

ave

ertain

laws.There

ppears

o

be

an

inherent

ifficultyn finding

criterion

hat

distinguishes

d

rom

non-art,

nd,consequently,

n

providing

n

explicit

definition

f

art,

Yet it

may

be

that

this

is

impossible

s well

as

unnecessary,

d

is

complex nd

appears

n

a variety

f

fdrms/genres.

e

do

not need

a

definition

f

art

in

order

o

understand

hatart

s.

It is

not

necessary

or

all

objects

hat

we

characterize

s ad objects

o

have

a common haracteristic

n

order

or

us

to

be

able

o

distinguishetweend andnon-art.

One

way

out

of

this

is

to

adopt

he

Wittgensteinian

erms

form

of

life

and

family

resemblance .

n

other

words,

ft

constitutes

form

of

life

and

he

different

rt genres re

related

o

eachother

n

a

family

esemblance

ay.

Moreover,

e claim

hat

he

orrn

of

life

of

ad

ncorporateshe

orms

f

ife

of

dance,

ainting,

usic, rchitecturend

other

enreswhich

are elated

o

eachother

by family

esemblance.

he orm

of

life

of

dance

hares

ome

f

the

15


26/251

general

characteristics

f

the

form

of

life

of

art

as

well

as overlapping

ith

the

form

of

life

of

painting.

For

example,

n

the

form

of

life

of

art as

well

as

in bothdance

and

painting,

here

s

the

creator

of

the

work and

the

receivers

i.

e.

the

audience),

The

medium

of

the

creation

s

different;n dance t is movement,n paintingshapedcolours.That s why we are ustifiedn

arguing

hat

dance

and paintingare

both

arts

but

of

different orms. n

the

sameway, we

can

claim

hat

dance

and

gymnastics

haresome

common

haracteristics,uchas movement,

ut

the

otherelements

hat

constitute

hese

ife orms

are

different.

3

Another

debate

hat

is

related

o the

questionof

What

s

aft?

is

whether

bad

works

of

aft are

works

of aft

and

whetherwe

should

allow

or

the

possibility f

bad

ad at all.

24 It

has

been

suggested

hat he term

work

of aft

is

an

honorificerm,

a

value

erm,

which

means

hat

to

speakof

bad

ad

is

contradictory.

here

s

no

doubt

hat the

term

work

of aft

is

used

n

manycases

honorifically. ut

this

is

not always

he

case,

or it

seems

hat

we

can

speakof

worksof

art

in

a neutral

way

as

well

(i.

e.

thefts

of

works

of arl:

5).

So

he

term work

of

art can

be

used

n both

an

honorific

and a

neutralway.

It

appears

hat

n

order

o

determine

whether

the

erm

s

used

honorifically

r neutrally,

we

have

o take

nto

account

he

context

n

which

he

term

s

used.

If

we

are

o

accept

he

usage

work

of aft

in

an

exclusively

onorific

ense

we

shallneed

to providean analysisof the phrasebadworkof ad . Suchanalysiswill depend n turnon

what

account

of art

we

have n

mind.

That s, if

there

s

a set

of

characteristics, hich

nclude

success

n its

aims

he

possession f which

makessomething workof

art,

then

o

say

hat

a

work

has

hese

characteristics

nd

at

the

same

ime

s

artistically

ad, s

contradictory.

t

may

23

The

similarities

nd

dissimilarities

etweenance

ndother rtsandpractices

re

llustrated

n

he

ast

chapter

of

he

hesis.

2 Themain eferenceor hesessuess CyrilBarretts rticleAreBadWorks fArt Works fArt ,nPhilosophY

and

heArts,

Royalnstitute

f

Philosophyectures,

ol.

(London: acmillan,973)

p.

82

-93.

25

Example

aken

rom

Barrett

p.

U.,

p.

183.

16


27/251

be

bad

n

some ther espect

ut

notas

a workof ad.

But f

we

hink

hat he

whole

ndeavour

to

find

a

criterion

r a

set

of criteria

or

ad

s impossible

nd

unnecessary,e

do

not

seewhy

one

s

not

ustified

n

speaking f

bad

worksof an.

After

all,

the

term

can

be

used

n

an

honorificenseo showone sparticulardmirationf a certainworkbysayingThatswhat

call

a work

of ad.

So,

as a consequence

e

consider

n

aesthetic

heory

s

being lawed

when

t

does

not

allow

or

he

possibilityf

bad

ad.

This

will

be

explored

n

more

etailn ater

hapters.

1.6.TheNotion

of

Context

The

erm

context

as been

alreadymentioned ore

han

once

andas

the

thesis

s

developed

he

mportance

f

the

notion

f

context

n

ourapproach

ill

become

ore

nd

more

evident.

In

accordanceith

he

methodological

emarks

made

n

Section .1,

a

working

efinition

of

the term

context s

needed.

Context

as

a

variety

of uses

n

English

and

to

avoid

misunderstanding

s

o

how t is being

sed

n

this

hesis

we

shall

describe

hatwe

mean

by

context

f

the dance/performance.

ontext

s

used

here

as

a

technical

erm

and efers

o

all

theexternaleatures/indicationshathelpus makehedistinctionetweenwomantrollingn

the

park,

or

example,nda

woman

ancing,

dancer

n

a

theatre

tage or

anything

hat

s

used

s a

stage

-

moves

ntentionally;

here

s

also,

n

the

majority f cases,

music, ostumes,

lighting,

cenery nd

other tage ffects nd,of

course,

n audience.

hese

xternal

lements

constitute

he

contextor

the

form

of

life

of

dance. t is

thus

suggested

hat

he

different

17


28/251

contexts

n

which

movement

equence

akes

place

ifferentiatesancerom

gymnastics

nd

dance

rom

everyday ovement.

Movements

the

basis

f every

ance. he

ypes

of

movements

hat

constitute

dance

arenotsodifferentromeveryday ovements.particular ovementhatappearsnadance

can

be

padof

some

ctivity ther

han

dance.t

seems

o

be

rue

hat

no

movement

equence

will,

on

ts

own,

be

uniquely

istinctive

o dance.Dance

movements

reoften

more

omplex

andsophisticated

han

everyday

ife

movements

ut

his s

not

nvariably

o.

Even

a precise

description

f a movement ill not

ead

us

to

realize

hat

whatwe

are

watching

s

dance

nd

not somethinglse

a

ritualor

a

habit,or

example).

t

can

hereforee

argued

hat

what

makes

particular

movement

dance

movement

s

the

fact

that

he

latter s

a

performed

movement;

hat

s

to

say,

t

appears

ithin

he

ramework

f

a performance.

ontext

lso

helps

here.

The

external

eatures

-

costumes,

ighting,

he

stage,

he

act

hat

here

s

anaudience

cancontribute

o the

ealization

hat

what

s taking

lace

n front

of

us

s

a

dance

erformance.

But

hese

xternal haracteristicsreprobablytillnotsufficient

o

assure

s

hat

what

we

are

watching

s

a

dance

performance

ndnot somethinglse.

We

shallgo on

to

argue

hat

he

symbolicpace

f

the

dance

lso

contributes.

6

We

note

he

caseof

modem

ance

works,where

he

external

haracteristics

f

dance

performancesreconsciouslylurred,ocreate aguenessbouthenature fthemovement.

What

hen

ndicates

he

context

f

the

dance? he

notion

f meaning lays

a

vital

ole

at

this

point:a

movement

cquiresmuchof

its

meaning

rom

he

context

n

which

t

appears.

movement

n

isolation

means

ittle. n

different

ontexts

he

samemovements

cquire

ifferent

meaningsndare

understood

n different

ays.

n

order

o

be n

a

position

o

determinehat

a

See

Chapter

on

Symbolic

pace.

18


29/251

particular

movementequence

s dance,

we need

irstly

o

describe

he

movements

nd

secondly

o take

nto

account

he

place

and

he

circumstances

n

which

hey

ake

place.

We

shouldalso

be

aware

o

a

greater r

lesser

extent

of

the codes rules)

with

which

most

membersf

the

audience ill

be amiliar

whenattending

dance

erformance.

his

ssue s

addressed

n

detail

ater n

he hesis.

7

On

he

other

hand,

we

could

suggest

hat

dance s

a

special

ind

of movement

nd

what

makes

t

special tems

rom

he

act

hat

we

udge

andappreciate

t

as a

work

of

art.

n

otherwords,whatwe

are

doing

ere s

to

aestheticize

ertain

inds

f movement

ndcall

he

result ance. ut hat stocommithe allacyhatwedescribednthepreviousection: e ail

to

discem

he

differenceetween

he

artistic nd

he

aesthetic.

We

now

return

o the

ssue

of

knowledge

f

the

codes

and elaborate

he

view

hat

some

nowledge

f

the

radition(s)

ithin

which

ance

works

areconceived

oes

-

even,

must

-

contribute

o

our

understanding

nd

appreciationf a

movement

equences

dance.

1.7.

The

Notion

of

Tradition(s)

How

are

we

supposed

o

understand

traditions)? What

o

we

mean

y

dance

radition

and

how

does

the

knowledge

f

the

tradition(s)

ontribute

o

our understanding

nd

appreciationf

dance?

By

tradition

we

refer

o

dance

history,

o the

genres, tyles

and

performances

hat

were

produced

eforehe

dance

piece

which

s

nowperformed

n

front

of

us,

and

which

nable s

o

compare nd

differentiate

he

current

ork

rom

previous

nes.

The

27

Mainlyn

the

inal

chapter,

hapter

,

where

t

is

suggested

hat

dance

onstitutessystem f communication

and

s

a carrier

f meaning.

ne

of

the

points

made

n

our

attempt

o distinguishancerom

gymnastics

s to

suggest

hat

dance

as

meaning hilst

ymnastics

as

significance.

19


30/251

knowledge

f

an

existing

radition

ontributes

o

the

better

utline

f

the

orm

of

life

of

dance

and

o the

reconstruction

f

the

network f

family

esemblances

hat

connect

he

different

dance

enres.

Despite eing

aware

hat

manywould trongly bject

o this

suggestion,

t

seems

hat

we

cannot

eny

he

role

hat

some oft

of

knowledge

-

even

f

merely

mplicit

-

of

tradition

r

history

lays

n

ourappreciationf

a

workof art.

Works

f art

do

notexist

n solation;

hey

are

part

of

the

culture

n

which

hey

have

been

reated

nd

o

a great

extent

he

atter

s

reflected

in

them.

They

re

he

productsf a particular

istoric

eriod

nd

hey

should

e

appreciated

s

such.Thisdoesnot meano implyhat hesocialor cultural ackgroundhould e heonly

ground gainst

which

a

work

of art

should

e

understood.

hat

we aresuggesting

s

simply

that

eachwork

of art

belongs

o

a particular

ra

which

has

a

bearing

nour

esponse

o

t.

Willingly

or

unwillingly,

onsciously r

unconsciously,

e

are

influenced

n

our

appreciationnd

understanding

f a workof aft

by

our previous xpedenceS.

8

Our

approach

Wrap Thesis Tsoulou 2003

Documents

Transcript of Wrap Thesis Tsoulou 2003