As we have discussed in class there are three understandings of dance aesthetics:
1) Dance is the art of imitation
2) Dance as an art of expression
3) Dance as an art of form
We further questioned in class, how do aesthetics relate to dance criticism? What really opened my eyes to this question was the philosophy of Immanuel Kant mentioned in Ivar Hagendoorn’s article “The Dancing Brain”. Kant talks about beauty verses the sublime. Beauty can be seen at first glance because there is something in the dance performance that is pleasing to the eye. On the other hand sublime is mentioned as “ It is at this moment that a feeling of pleasure sets in, as the self realizes that it has survived and, by implication, is more powerful that the vast object or event” (Hagendorn, 22). I am interested to delve into the meaning of sublime further. If a critic experiences the sublime, will the critique of the performance be more poignant? In other words will there be a more keen sense of understanding about the dance performance as a whole? Knowing the three key points of dance aesthetics can make the performance more comprehendible. Upon viewing the “Witch Dance” by choreographer Mary Wigman or a dance by Cunningham’s Company I wondered how an audience member would view both pieces. I think it can be a little difficult to find the meaning of these pieces offhand but understanding aesthetics can bring further meaning to these performances and to the critic.
~ Arielle D. Levy
I do not think that a critic will necessarily have an enhanced understanding of a performance if he or she has a sublime experience while watching it, but I think it could be a factor. From my understanding, the sublime is a satisfaction in the defiance of one's expectations. It will always be a powerful experience, but it may not be clear as to why it was powerful. This certainly could motivate a critic to focus more on his or her writing and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the piece, but I don't think it necessitates this process.
ReplyDelete