My one belief

Well in my last post I was talking about ideas versus beliefs. And how beliefs were more like rocks and ideas were more like clay. I tend to stay away from beliefs in my dance because I want my dance to be experimental and malleable. Beliefs are hard to change. They are seen to be true. But I do have one idea that comes close to a belief that I want to discuss.

I don’t believe a person’s dance should be built on shock value but rather their dance should be built around craftsmanship. When I say shock value I mean it in a specific low brow way. Illusional dance is naturally shocking because it disrupts a viewers preconceived perception of how a body moves in the physical world. That is good shock value in my opinion. When I say shock value I mean it in a theatrical sense. Sort of like how Lady Gaga, Marilyn Manson, Madonna, Alice Cooper or for that matter any pop artist uses shock tactics to increase their visibility. For example being weird for the sake of being weird, being sexual to arouse moral concern, or claiming any sort of deviance to get a rise out of the general public. These things are negative shock value in my opinion. It’s a divisive strategy setting up two sides to root for and against the performer. Controversy in other words. Talent is eclipsed by the public fighting over an irrelevant issue. The performer is no longer represented by their talent or creativity but rather they are represented by the controversy surrounding them. And usually after an artist (I use the term ‘artist’ loosely) begins to use low brow shock techniques they never go back to the thing that made them relevant in the first place: their time spent honing their craft. It merely becomes a race to find the next most shocking thing they can do. All their creative energy is wasted trying to get negative attention and cause division by stirring up controversy.

So with that in my mind I always want my dance to be about craftsmanship first and foremost. Spending most of my energies practicing the rudimentary physical components that create various illusions. Your movement can never be too clean or precise. It can always be better or more innovative. You can always interpret the music better or more innovatively. The theatrics I feel should be the final part of the equation or not part of the equation at all. How much more do you need to dress up a shocking physical illusion? It seems that dancers often try and innovate by acting weird when they dance. Making funny faces or rolling around or some such nonsense. All to get a rise out of the viewer and making the audience uncomfortable. Often this tactic is labeled as being ‘artistic’. It seems it has only been in the past century that the ‘artist’ has been praised for being eccentric. I don’t have anything against genuinely eccentric people. But being weird for the sake of shock value seems like a shortcut to me. If you are eccentric because of the way you look or socially interact with people so be it. That has no effect on energy expended towards refining your craftsmanship. If you are otherwise what society considers a plain dull person why should you waste your creative energies trying to be eccentric? Eccentricity does not equate to artistic merit. You can go to any number of insane asylums and meet incredibly eccentric people who are not able to function in what is deemed ‘normal’ society. Does this mean these people are actually incredible artistic geniuses just because they are eccentric and shocking? No. Craftsmanship is what defines an artist. If you have a brilliant idea but can’t execute it you are merely a dreamer. But if you develop a craft whether it be writing, dancing, singing, painting or what not you can express your idea or emotion through your craft and excite the imagination of your audience. The better your craftsmanship the more you connect with your audience.

So this is the one idea that comes close to being a belief for me. I want craftsmanship to define my dance not shock tactics. If I do something eccentric I don’t want it to be by design. It should arise simply out of my idiosyncratic nature