The Philosophy of Dance: The True Destiny of Dance
April 18th 2008 14:57
Category: No Category
Everything have purpose. Everything have its philosophy. Even apple have its own philosophy, so does it with dance. Do we ever ask ourselves why we move our hands, legs or body in such fashion or are we just imitating others?
Today, napping myself in a comfy public lounge, i woke up greeted with the sounds of people from different clubs in my school singing and practicing their dance whatever kind of they are affiliated to. As i slowly open up my eyes and stretching myself, i began to wonder and think of things. Why dance? What is dance? What is dance for? I realized i just couldn't understand how everybody there dance whatever their style and club is. They all have one thing in common, the way everyone i have ever seen practicing their dance starting to seem awkward to me.
Shouldn't dancing be a creative process? What i see everywhere is whenever somebody learn a dance, what they do is just copycat-ing, following whatever movements there is in the dance. They say dancing is the expression of oneself, but is it not more than copying and imitating other people's (the instructor's) movements till it gets absorbed deeply in the subconscious mind and then exhibiting the subconsciously-remembered movements to the public? The only fun or meaningful thing i perceive in doing so is just the challenge of synchronizing of movements with other the other members.
Every movements in a dance is supposed to have meaning on its own. As a philosopher, what had always interest me is why the person do this or that or move like this or that, and i so far could come up with the answer that it's supposedly to be the creator's expression, just like how we can choose from so many possibilities and combinations which ingredients in a kitchen that we want to use to express ourselves at that moment.
But i couldn't see this in the way conventional learning of dance being done. Do they even ever know the reason they choose to move their hands or legs like this or that to this and that direction amongst so many possible other movements? I'm pretty sure most everybody conventionally as the dancers doesn't bother even to grasp the meaning behind their own movements.
Would they answer, 'cos it's the way this way have been done for centuries'? If so can we term the dance as creative and means of self-expression? Isn't in the beginning, dance exist to express oneself, and the founder of the hedance wouldn't even could have started the dance movements without defining the why. The dance wouldn't have existed in the first place without reasonings underlying the movements of the dance. If i go ask the founder why the movements is like that, probably he/she would be the only one who could answer clearly, like let's say he/she may say, "Well, this hand moving up with palm facing to the heaven signifies opening our heart to the beauty of nature" and so on.
So does the creative process in a dance exist only within the boundaries of the creators/founders/choreograph ers? After thinking again for a while, i couldn't say agree with that fully. Even by imitating and copycat-ing every movements designed by the founder/creator of the dance, we are still provided the opportunity to edit, add, change or alter any part of the dance, therefore we do can still be creative while imitating. But how many of the people who dance truly understand that and really does that? How many of us understand that dancing is supposed to be creative process, not passive process of imitating and copycat-ing other people's movements?
I can say i would still find it acceptable and reasonable if people dance imitating the founder's movement first in order to understand the pattern or to grasp the essence of it which would then allow the dancer be creative by creating his/her own dance similarly/differently (but not exact duplicate) based from the understanding he gained through the imitation. Same movements with the original movements of the founder is fine and totally acceptable as long as one does it out of one choice and consent, instead of believing that one has to be framed and confined within the set of original movements. One who believes so reduce the value of of dancing a being something that is moving, colorful and alive in its true nature. Less colorful because when several or many troupes performing the same kind of dance get in the same stage, it would obviously show how less colorful the dance have become as result of everyone moving the same movements with each other.
An even deeper process of being creative in dancing is to understand what meaning lies behind the movements of the dance. Creative movements are not just anyhow moving our hands and legs, but have to have self-expression lying behind the movements. It would then can be said, we move like this or that not because it's the way its been done for centuries, but because we have chosen to move like this or that. Creativity means to create, not merely to imitate. Well, it is not wrong to just merely imitating a dance or just dancing the raw original way for sake of entertaining audiences, but only when one can play out the creative part as a dancer, can we say that the person have fulfilled part of the true destiny of dance as tool of self-expression. Dancing is supposedly ourselves talking in the language of body movements to the world and from the audience perspective, watching dance is about listening to what the dance have to talk to the audience. That is the true destiny of dance and for the audience to hear us, we have to be one at heart with every movements that we do.
Don't you think so? Do you agree? For you that have dances for ages, do you think i have got it right?
Shouldn't dancing be a creative process? What i see everywhere is whenever somebody learn a dance, what they do is just copycat-ing, following whatever movements there is in the dance. They say dancing is the expression of oneself, but is it not more than copying and imitating other people's (the instructor's) movements till it gets absorbed deeply in the subconscious mind and then exhibiting the subconsciously-remembered movements to the public? The only fun or meaningful thing i perceive in doing so is just the challenge of synchronizing of movements with other the other members.
But i couldn't see this in the way conventional learning of dance being done. Do they even ever know the reason they choose to move their hands or legs like this or that to this and that direction amongst so many possible other movements? I'm pretty sure most everybody conventionally as the dancers doesn't bother even to grasp the meaning behind their own movements.
Would they answer, 'cos it's the way this way have been done for centuries'? If so can we term the dance as creative and means of self-expression? Isn't in the beginning, dance exist to express oneself, and the founder of the hedance wouldn't even could have started the dance movements without defining the why. The dance wouldn't have existed in the first place without reasonings underlying the movements of the dance. If i go ask the founder why the movements is like that, probably he/she would be the only one who could answer clearly, like let's say he/she may say, "Well, this hand moving up with palm facing to the heaven signifies opening our heart to the beauty of nature" and so on.
I can say i would still find it acceptable and reasonable if people dance imitating the founder's movement first in order to understand the pattern or to grasp the essence of it which would then allow the dancer be creative by creating his/her own dance similarly/differently (but not exact duplicate) based from the understanding he gained through the imitation. Same movements with the original movements of the founder is fine and totally acceptable as long as one does it out of one choice and consent, instead of believing that one has to be framed and confined within the set of original movements. One who believes so reduce the value of of dancing a being something that is moving, colorful and alive in its true nature. Less colorful because when several or many troupes performing the same kind of dance get in the same stage, it would obviously show how less colorful the dance have become as result of everyone moving the same movements with each other.
Don't you think so? Do you agree? For you that have dances for ages, do you think i have got it right?
| 40 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
WeR1Family
