I think having set “dance, drama, visual art, and music” apart from other human activities as fitting their own category is what’s significant here. How does that work? Is it because they appeal to an aesthetic sense? How does meditation and gardening get excluded then? Is it because they are intended to give an aesthetic gift to others? How do cooking and writing get excluded then?
To me, music is so broadly and deeply appreciated that it is weird to include it as “art” (though I understand it’s traditional to). I’m not sure there’s ANYBODY not touched by music, and it’s pretty much exclusively for touching people aesthetically. And if you’re going to include music as an “art”, how can you exclude humor? They are both such universally appreciated aesthetic gifts that we don’t do for any reason other than the feeling they generate in the moment.
Various other things including dance, drama, visual art, mime, gardening, meditation, cooking, writing, jewelry, makeup, and more, are things with aesthetic and other elements that we enjoy according to taste. And there’s no accounting for taste. I think dance is just the least appreciated item on the list you gave, and that doesn’t mean much, as one of them had to be lowest.
Not that I think I know much about aesthetic judgement…
I understand why people like to do it. I’m not entirely sure why people like to watch it. I only enjoy it when it’s accompanied by singing, is brief, and especially when it is in large formations. The symmetry pleases me. I otherwise find it tedious.
Its because the difference between art and sport is that art communicates a message or aims to generate an emotional response. However, in dance the communicative emotional content is dictated by the choreographer/director, not the performer. That’s why I say the choreographer is the artist, not the dancer. The dancer just follows instructions to produce the emotion dictated by the choreographer. The dancer here is like the paint or or the clay used to create the art.
Except in the case of improvisational dance, in which case, the dancer could be the artist because they themselves are dictating the communicative content.
And if the dance has no communicative content, it’s definitely sport. Comparably, productive skills which have no communicative content are known as “craft”. A beautifully made sweater is not art, because it has no message to communicate. Craft is not an insult by the way. Knitting could be an artistic medium if an artist uses it to communicate, but typically it isn’t.
Personally, yes. Compared to film, artwork, writing, music, etc. it isn’t that impressive to me. Dance is more of a subset of music to me, I only like watching or doing it when the physical motions match the music. Either way, it is a way to augment music, not an independent art form. Ballroom dancing on the other hand is fun to do, but not fun to watch.
That’s all well and good, as long as you realize that your definition of “art” is idiosyncratic and not aligned with the formal definition of “art”.
I love watching dance, Quasimodal. It is just as emotive and provocative as any fine painting or sculpture. If I had a choice between watching a dance performance or going to a fine art museum, the dance performance would win every time.
I don’t think dance is unfairly singled out, here. I just think it’s an example of how having a hobby you care passionately about isn’t really considered “cool” in today’s society, which values a certain kind of aloofness.
I think most of the way we validate hobbies is related to money. Write a published novel? Cool. Write a bunch of sci-fo screenplays that aren’t going anywhere? Not cool. Paint gallery art? Cool. Paint ceramic figurines? Not cool. Collect expensive cars? Cool. Collect decorative plates? Not cool. Golf? Cool. Miniature golf? Not cool.
There are a few exceptions for universally loved things, like music, movies or cooking. And there are a few things that affect the coolness factor- hobbies associated with women are less cool than those associated with men. Things that involve costumes are never cool.
I’m guessing that if you were a paid backup dancer for Beyonce, people would consider that cool. Or if you were part of a nationally touring West African dance troop, that might be cool.
But dancing for the sheer joy of it is “uncool.” We associate being “cool” with being unaffected, success/money oriented, and having a level of external validation.
I disagree that my definition doesn’t match the definition you listed. If pure aesthetics and a display of technical prowess create art, then football is an art. In fact, everything is an art. At which point, the distinction between “art” and “everything” becomes meaningless.
Art begins when the artist attempts to communicate with the viewer.
I took a performance art class in college, and we discussed how sport is indeed an artform. It is just isn’t conventionally framed in that way.
No, not everything is art. But art encompasses a lot of things. It has a very broad definition. Saying something is “art” is not putting it up on a lofty pedestal. It’s just calling an object what it is. Dance is art. It is both a visual art and a performance art. A dancer is a performance artist. Even if Michael Jackson had never composed a single song or dance move, he would have still been an artist.
I’ve seen painting and plays that have made me feel sad and I’ve heard music that has made me feel sad. But I can’t think of ever seeing a dance that made me feel sad (especially in the absence of sad music).
When someone at my church does an interpretive dance on the meaning of today’s readings, it’s so painful to watch that I end up closing my eyes until it’s over. No, it’s not art, it’s an indulgent exercise.
It’s bizarre to me that people can’t see or feel the emotional content in dance.
To me, it’s full of meaning, I can see the meaning when I watch dancers (and I definitely feel it and try to convey it when I am doing performance-type-dancing - and I suck). Good dancers absolutely add their interpretations to the choreography and are conveying meaning through their movements. I’ve seen dances that made me feel elated, dances that have made me laugh out loud, and more than one that’s made me cry. It might be that I know what I’m looking for. As a contrast, I can’t hear the difference in interpretations of classical music. I’ll hear someone say that a certain recording is “playful” or a musician is “powerful” and to me it sounds like every other recording of the same song. I’ve no idea what I should be listening for there.
For the OP, I think the response you’re getting is not just because it’s dance, but also because of the type of dance you’re doing. Not that there’s anything wrong with WCS (I love it. It’s one of my hobbies), but social dance is viewed differently than other types of dance. Part of the response is possibly because you’re a guy; a woman who talked about dancing would probably get a more positive response.
It’s bizarre to me too. And it’s bizarre that people assume that because dance doesn’t reasonate with them emotionally, that means it doesn’t to anyone else, thus negating it’s worth as “art”.
Mona Lisa doesn’t do a damn thing for me. But I’m not crazy enough to think that means anything.
Perhaps it is lack of quality exposure. If my only exposure to modern dance was the fluffy stuff that you find at some churches, maybe I wouldn’t get it either. But I can’t imagine watching five minutes of this and not feeling anything.
I think people can be allowed to say “maybe that’s art for you, but not for me.”
Sometimes I’ll look at a computer program or circuit board or some other well-engineered thing and think “that’s a work of art.” And I mean it literally–it triggers the same aesthetic response that conventional art does. Obviously it’s not triggering emotions like sadness or happiness but rather things like an appreciation for craftsmanship and elegance.
Anyway, I wouldn’t expect any but a tiny percentage of the population to agree, or even have the tools for appreciation. For most people, a computer program is incomprehensible nonsense, not art. And they’d be right–for them.
I’m fine with that, as long as others don’t get too worked up when I can’t see anything in dance that tickles the artistic part of my brain. It may just be that I don’t have the mental tools for appreciation.
What? No. Lots of efforts lack aesthetics and prowess.
No, all dancers at least contribute to the artistry of the actual expressed dance. The relationship is the same as that of performing musicians to composers and written music.
But the word “art” doesn’t mean “whatever it is I find awesome and beautiful”. I think my cat is awesome and beautiful, but I’d be wrong to call my cat a work of art.
Art has no value in and of itself. It’s just a description. A person is allowed to say whatever they want about art, but another person is also allowed to judge that opinion as ill-informed. Someone who uses the word “art” to describe things that only reasonates with them is ill-informed about what “art” actually means.