In Running Out of Breath, Tom Johnson begins in his introduction with the following: "Considering the difficulties of communicating a dance on a printed page, it might be helpful if I explain where Running Out of Breath came from" (332). When I first read this, I thought about how the dance scenarios were not so easy to follow. I also thought about authenticity and how one can keep a dance alive. In anthropology, text books and ethnographic studies are used to describe culture. The goal is to preserve an experience on paper, yet anthropologist have different interpretations and experiences during participant observation. Similar to anthropology, dance can be interpreted differently from choreographer to choreographer and audiences. If the reader, choreographer or director have different perspectives, are dance scenarios effective? Can one rely on dance scenarios as a way to recreated and preserved based on the details provided? Is there any interpretation, feeling, or motive that is lost every time a dance is recreated? Why or why not?
(Think about assignment #3, creating our own dance scenarios. A person reading your scenario might interpret the dance or an idea differently from what you intended.)
Reconstructing a dance is a process that requires a significant amount of information. As part of both the "Partida V" and "Heretic" reconstructions at F&M, I have learned that the more information you have, the better you can understand both the movement and the intention of the piece.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a layout of the steps in space (as in Labanotation) is not sufficient in understanding a piece. As dancers, we seek to find the meaning behind the movement, and this is no different for reconstructions. This knowledge (even if it does not entirely align with the original vision of the choreographer) can provide dancers with purpose in their performance.
The process of reconstruction entails understanding the cultural and societal situation of the time... for example, was the piece created as a protest to their current state of the world? How does the piece fit in the time in which it was created? Furthermore, you need a reasoning as to why the piece can fit into the time it is reconstructed. Even though the movement was created in the past, how is it applicable to the present?
This information is integral in the reconstruction process, and so it may be important to include some insight for future readers that goes beyond the plot or movement description.
The line that stand out to me in Katie's response is, "the more information you have, the better you can understand both the movement and the intention of the piece." I agree. In order for one to reconstruct any dance, one must have have background information and become familiar with the plot/dance.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, sometimes all the information still isn't enough to recreate the original choreographer's vision. A person is never in the same mindset twice in their lifetime. As time and experience play a role, your view on one thing differs every time that subject is bought up, even in your own work. A reconstruction can be done obviously, but that is more based on the talent of the reconstruction choreographer and their previous relationship to the work rather than the groundwork provided by the scenario.
ReplyDelete"A person is never in the same midst twice in their lifetime." I definitely agree with you statement Shakerra. This is the beauty of dance. There is room for emotion and thinking that is never the same in every performance.
ReplyDeleteEvery human body respond differently to movement and also executes movement different from another human body. This is why dance is an art.
For reconstruction, knowledge of the piece and the dancer is essential. A dancer must have enough background and feel comfortable being in a piece that is being reconstructed. This is to respect the work of the choreographer and the dancers who performed the piece.