All the way back in May, I was pondering the collision of modern media and the organic process of artistic creation. In that post I wrote:

"A sculpture or a painting--even a piece of music or a video--is not expected to change, and is appreciated for its unchanging beauty. It is it's solidity that is part of its appeal, in a way. We see the same piece over time, and instead of expecting it to change or adapt to us, our perspective adapts and changes. We see it (hear it, experience it) from different angles, in different lights, in a different environment, our attitudes change, our perceptions change; and we find that our appreciation deepens and becomes richer and more multi-faceted as we take the time to consider the piece from all these perspectives. The work to appreciate that art day-to-day is in our hands as the viewer."

Behind the cut below is a vintage video which discusses a related topic: that how classic art is viewed today is so radically different from how it was when those works were created. One of my favorite quotes:

"As you look at (the art) now, on your screen, your wallpaper is around them, your window is opposite them, your carpet is below them. At this same moment, they are on many other screens, surrounded by different objects, different colors, different sounds. You are seeing them in the context of your own life. They are surrounded not by gilt frames, but by the familiarity of the room you are in and the people around you.

Originally paintings were an integral part of the building for which they were designed. Sometimes when you go into a Renaissance church or chapel, you have the feeling that the images on the wall are records of the building's interior life. Together they make up the building's memory, so much are they are part of the life and individuality of the building. Everything around the image is part of its meaning. Its uniqueness is part of the uniqueness of the single place where it is. Everything around it confirms and consolidates its meaning."

Which made me think about different pieces of dance performance art, and how for me it is ideally a reflection of the dancer's (or dancers') "interior life". And that sometimes, that context is so integral to fully appreciating the performance, yet we don't often have that piece of the puzzle. We are viewing it and assessing it "in the context of (our) own life", as an audience, by the familiarity of the room we are in and the people around us, no less! How much of the backstory is necessary to make a concept piece really effective for our audience, and how much is it lost if we just put it out there without our audience having any perspective on the creative roots from which the concept has sprung? When they go "huh", is it the audience's lack of vision or personal context, or did we fail as performers to make our intent and creative vision clear? And even further, how much does venue play a part of such a performance?

Is this part of the key in the proliferation of poor fusion out there? Lack of context? My very rambling stream of consciousness behind the cut...

Is it the crux of the problem that new and blossoming dancers are viewing fusion of another artist--a fusion which sprung from that artist's personal context, which the viewers are not privy to in any detail--and then parroting that style or creative choice without any personal context?

And then we have to ask, is it a failure of the performer to really access and present a honest "interior life" (rather than a contrived or copied one) in the work?

Or is there simply a lack of an understanding, on the part the audience, of an expression which is coming truly from within the dancer on stage?

Certainly the latter seems to be the cry of the struggling artist. I find that most often when dancers are challenged on their artistic choices, the volley back is "You just don't get it!" Soon followed by "I will do whatever I WANT. I am an ARTIST!!" The insinuation is that it is entirely on us, the viewer, to do the work of understanding and appreciating, and none of that rests on the performer themselves. That their job is only to do whatever they feel, whatever they think makes sense in the context of their life (even if it is sometimes a completely superficial copy of someone else's choices) without consideration of their audience. But I would argue that we are not just visual artists as dancers; that as performers, we are also necessarily entertainers. And while part of our job is an internal struggle to create something genuine from within ourselves, the other part is translating it into something for others to consume. If your work is truly from within you, and you want to put it out there for others to share in, the next step is to consider how you will best convey your message so others can appreciate it.

So following this train of thought, I ponder many questions...

How much of copying another's style is a stepping stone to a more personal expression, and how much of it is a crutch to avoid the real work of personal development?

How much of the responsibility to make any performance piece understood is in the hands of the performer versus the eye of the beholder? And what role to we performers have in helping the latter along? Is it creative sacrifice or creative consideration to change our original vision in any way to be more palatable to our audience?

This topic has come out of a discussion that is being bandied about on one of our local discussion groups here in Washington. One of the many micro-topics within it had to do with the idea that dance need not be specifically a performance art. That it is in fact many things to many people, and not all of these people are interested in performing. I agree with that, and elaborated...

*********************************

I remember from when I first started teaching, it was really really important to me to make sure my students understood that this dance could be just for them if they wanted, and that no one was pushed or expected to perform it. I know for me, while I have always been a performer (lifetime background in theater, music, gymnastics, and Western dance forms), there were non-performance facets to this dance that were so important to me! Particularly being a tribal group improvisational dancer, this dance is so fun as a modern folk dance, which can be a social group dance at any gathering where the other dancers know the movements and cues. I have always loved dancing by the fire among fellow dancers, just jamming, not putting on a show for anyone! When I host open dance parties, I am trying to foster that free spirit of joy and sharing among other dancers, which has nothing to do with performance in the least.

I would add this food for thought, and would love to hear other teachers' take on it:

While I am always telling my students that they need not have a goal to perform this dance, as I myself grew as a teacher I learned that I must teach them AS IF THEY WERE. Why? Because you don't know where a student is going to take what you teach them and what they will want to do with it. By teaching them the skills of performance, they can take that *anywhere*--they can choose to perform, or they can choose use their dance skills as a ritual or meditation, or they can use it just for exercise, or they can do it in their living room for their pets.

The fact is, as a teacher, I have no true control over where they choose to go with their dance--I can advise and encourage, but beyond that, they will do what they will. So if I teach them nothing of performance skills and strong technique, about ethics and their responsibility to the community at large; and then later some of them start to perform at haflas and then later want to go pro, with my having taught them none of the appropriate skills or passed on the vital knowledge, I have done them and this community a disservice. Once the box is opened, you can't put the djinn back in! You can't say "Wait wait! I didn't teach you how to *perform*. I was just teaching you how to *dance*!" That will never work.

The classroom is the place for the highest of standards--it is why we should encourage articulate and thoughtful teachers with a wide swath of knowledge on not only "just dancing", but also deeper technique and physiology of movement, choice of appropriate venues, assembling flattering and appropriate costuming, musical choice and interpretation, staging and presentation, etc. To me, in a classroom , there is no such thing as "just dance".(<---note I am saying in the classroom, not at the party, around the fire, at the party, etc) Dance as a skill is a much larger entity which includes all of the above and more. What a student chooses to do with it may or may not rely on each of these elements in the end--if they dance in their living room, they can do it naked to Quiet Riot and nobody need worry a whit about what that will do to the perception of bellydance/bellydancers in the eye of the GP. ;) But as soon as you take it to the stage and name it, and other eyes are on it, your responsibility to how it is presented is much greater, and encompasses these elements and more. And if your teacher never passed on all this valuable information, and more than that never encouraged it and required it of you in ongoing practice in anticipation that you *might* one day want to perform, then what happens...? Discussions like these happen, that's what!

So I strongly feel that the dance need not and should not ONLY be for performing/entertaining. It is so many things to so many people, and all are equally valuable and beautiful! But as a teacher, just like my Algebra teacher kept droning "You need to learn this because some day you will want to use it..." (dammit she was right!!), I will continue to teach strong performance skills and ethics to my students "just in case"...:)

If you are a teacher, what is your philosophy behind teaching performance ethics and skills? If you are a student, what have you run into in your classes with regard to learning about the responsibilities of taking your dance to the stage?