No one can deny that movement is a language of its own sort, used to express a myriad of emotions, events, and concepts. It is no surprise then that movement, like so many other forms of communication, was originally a method of narration. Storytelling has remained an integral core of dance-making throughout history. In the ballet world, for example, narrative ballets such as “Le Sylphide” and “Sleeping Beauty” are akin to childhood stories in our culture like “Hansel and Gretel” or “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”: classic, familiar, and fantastical. However, as the art form of dance has evolved beyond the “necessary” tethers of a plot, I cannot help but wonder if there is any place in our society for such dances other than pure nostalgia. I will not deny that story dances are still accepted and enjoyed in our culture today; not only are major companies such as the New York City Ballet still performing the classical narrative ballets, but popular television shows such as So You Think You Can Dance offer pieces in various styles that, more often than not, display some sort of narrative. It seems to me that such dances are rather easy to comprehend, and thus appeal to the mass public, but hold no substantial value beyond evoking pleasing and wistful responses. Movement as an art should no longer require a story in order to be appealing: as Doris Humphrey states in her article “New Dance”, “They [her works] are a cohesive form in the way that symphony is and need neither music nor story as crutches to support them.” In order for dance to continue progressing, do we need to shed our narrative roots in favor of the more deep, complex, and rich?
And, incidentally, Lila just posted a link to this article on her Facebook, which seems relevant! (And, even if it's not, it's still a really interesting read!)
No comments:
Post a Comment