Chapter 8: "The Hidden Authoritarian Roots in Western Concert Dance" in "Dance, Human Rights, Social Justice"
When everyone fills in the blanks of the sentence at the end of the day, it implies that everyone is being heard and that their ideas are equally important.
When the ensemble is separated into different groups, it implies that a division of labor/skills exists.
When all the teachers and interns do the workshops with the teenagers, it implies that there is no hierarchical structure.
When a student is singled out in a group activity, it implies that they are doing something noticeably different than the rest of the ensemble.
Chapter 2, "Practical Imperative"
Reflect - "Is dance by its nature inevitably authoritarian? Can human rights coexist with the aims of dance, the art of the body? Or will dance be acutely bound to represent stifled individuals, their humiliation and their desire for freedom because it is so interlinked with suppression and violation of the human body itself? And what would a democratic or a rights-based dance look like? Can such a thing exist? Would this be the ultimate anti-art, so politically correct and unprovocative, that it becomes absurdly boring?"
I don't think dance is inevitably authoritarian because it is possible for the individual dancer to make their own choices about how they're moving. Dance is not always the result of someone telling you to dance. I'm thinking of when you're in the grocery store and music is playing quietly in the background or if you have a song stuck in your head. When music is present like this, individuals will begin to move unconsciously to it, some will start dancing outright because the music makes them want to move or express what they're feeling. Granted this is not in a formal dance class setting or a company but what about artists who choreograph on themselves. Yes they're using their body as a tool but it's to express themselves. Thinking of the human body as a tool...the question supposes that dance suppresses and violates the human body itself...but I don't think this is always the case. I've heard directives in dance classes where the teacher says don't control your body, release your head or just breathe, for example, in this situation the dance is the natural progression of your body's movements.
I think s o long as the dancer's voice is taken into account by the choreographer/teacher/etc than their human rights are being recognized. They should always have the right to say no to a movement and the ability to make suggestions.
Furthermore, a dance that is trying to say something needs the dancers to connect to the message. If they're simply doing movements with no intention behind them, the audience can usually tell. The dance doesn't have the same impact that it would if the dancers believed in the message they're trying to convey. We saw great examples of this during the collaboration between Youth Creates and Moving in the Spirit. The dancers knew what they were trying to say with their dancers and were able to articulate it to the tech crew to help create atmosphere that correlated. When a dancer was unsure of what they were trying to say it often came up in notes that people were unsure what message they were trying to convey.
I think democratic and rights-based dance exists in collaborative work. It's hard if one person is in charge because then they have the power to make the final decisions but in work where people come together to create there exists a democracy. We've seen examples of this in Youth Creates when everyone in the circle makes a suggestion or contributes to a sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment