Many would argue, from the beginning of dance. That is the beauty of the arts. This particular performance, however, shocked me. Ballet doesn’t mix with ballroom and point shoes are rarely seen in a contemporary piece, cloggers aren’t disco dancers and men in tuxes should never dance with scooters. Strange how these performances are the ones the stuck in my mind the longest.
In class our discussions of rhetoric, pathos, logos, ethos, and now “receiving” helped me sit through the hours of what would have been a meaningless performance. However I was intrigued. What was the meaning behind the dances? What were the choreographers trying to make me feel in reference to rhetoric or pathos? Why was that particular piece of music chosen? I had never bothered to understand dance, it’s beyond me. I’m much too literal. So I must admit that trying to puzzle through the dances were frustrating. Some were for simple enjoyment or to let you have a taste of an old folk dance. Others so that you could oooh and ahhhh at the graceful figures and difficult lifts or routines the dancers were performing, and still others that made you want to stand and get on stage with them.
I never realized before how difficult it is to make the audience understand the story behind a dance or a piece of music. I think that’s why we make fun of dancers, they have to work really hard to get their point across and it usually makes them look very silly. Still it was an amazing performance and I was impressed with the creativity and proficiency of the performers. I rarely enjoy dance performances. I enjoyed World of Dance.
I smiled when I read 'That is the beauty of the arts,' and I was thinking about all the arts as I read your piece. I think making the receiver understand is a huge part of any expression. After all, it's not really expression without a receiver, and if the wrong idea is being received, it sort of defeats the purpose to a point where it might as well have not been received at all.
ReplyDeleteI think my point is: I agree with you.