This video first struck me as really bizarre, and I was kind of interested in the fact that her movements seemed so normal and unintentional. But then I realized as I was reading the article that she truly did what she said she was trying to do: strip dance from everything else, including emotion. Throughout the video, it also becomes very clear that her movements are controlled and purposeful even if they are casual and simple. What is a little curious about this particular dance is that she remains completely emotionless and it almost doesn't even seem to register in her that she is dancing. I can't decide whether I like this about the piece or whether I think there should at least be some feeling of purpose or reaction in the dancer. One thing I find a little confusing about the idea of dance being any sort of movement, is then where is the line drawn between dancing and not dancing? If every movement is fair game for dance, then are we just dancing all the time? I think that's an interesting thought, if maybe a little too romanticized.
I've always enjoyed Martha Graham - but I had never had the chance to see Yvonne Ranier dance. I thoroughly enjoyed her "No Manifesto" but I took some issue with her idea of "no moving" or "no being moved." What is dancing if not movement? Any sort of movement. But under Ranier's "no manifesto" - breathing can be considered dancing. As well as lying perfectly still for an inordinate amount of time. There is something beautiful in that idea - but is it practical? Does dance even need to be practical?
On the other hand I was impressed by her "No to seduction of spectator by the wiles of the performer." Too often I feel like we dance just to satisfy what others want. Ranier and Graham both have no intention of doing anything for anybody but themselves. Dancing is their diary. Potentially enjoyed by others - but mostly just for oneself
This dance reminded me of the improvisation exercises we do during class. She seems to just be exploring the nature of her body and the movements it is capable of. Yvonne Rainer isn't concerned with beauty or smoothness, just movement. It is an interesting take on dance, since I think these days mainstream dance is very stylized and even overdone at times.
While I agree that at its heart, dancing is simply movement, I think the thing I enjoy so much about dance is its ability to form connections and communicate something. So when Rainer says "no to involvement of performer or spectator", I don't quite understand. Doesn't a performer perform because they want to share and connect with others? Even if dancing is a "diary", as Eliot says, I think we keep diaries because on some level we want to share the information. Otherwise, we would just keep it internalized. Nothing is compelling unless we feel *something* towards it. Otherwise, what is to motivate the dancer to keep dancing, and the spectator to keep watching?
This performance was something I never seen before. After, listening to Alicia discuss in class, I could see a lot of work is definitely influenced by Rainner at UCSD. She strips everything away in her piece (emotion). Some people discussed in class that they were focusing on certain parts of the body. I agreed with this statement presented in class and really found that my concentration on the lower part of the body. Movements were very engaging and yet so different. Thus, I was able to point out the flow of gravity taking her at times and this reminded me of what we experiment in class after our body scans. Very different from Graham, but I enjoyed it and personally found a lot of similarities to what I experience in the “space” in class as well as in the improve exercises as Megan had mentioned.
This video first struck me as really bizarre, and I was kind of interested in the fact that her movements seemed so normal and unintentional. But then I realized as I was reading the article that she truly did what she said she was trying to do: strip dance from everything else, including emotion. Throughout the video, it also becomes very clear that her movements are controlled and purposeful even if they are casual and simple. What is a little curious about this particular dance is that she remains completely emotionless and it almost doesn't even seem to register in her that she is dancing. I can't decide whether I like this about the piece or whether I think there should at least be some feeling of purpose or reaction in the dancer.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I find a little confusing about the idea of dance being any sort of movement, is then where is the line drawn between dancing and not dancing? If every movement is fair game for dance, then are we just dancing all the time? I think that's an interesting thought, if maybe a little too romanticized.
I've always enjoyed Martha Graham - but I had never had the chance to see Yvonne Ranier dance. I thoroughly enjoyed her "No Manifesto" but I took some issue with her idea of "no moving" or "no being moved." What is dancing if not movement? Any sort of movement. But under Ranier's "no manifesto" - breathing can be considered dancing. As well as lying perfectly still for an inordinate amount of time. There is something beautiful in that idea - but is it practical? Does dance even need to be practical?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I was impressed by her "No to seduction of spectator by the wiles of the performer." Too often I feel like we dance just to satisfy what others want. Ranier and Graham both have no intention of doing anything for anybody but themselves. Dancing is their diary. Potentially enjoyed by others - but mostly just for oneself
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis dance reminded me of the improvisation exercises we do during class. She seems to just be exploring the nature of her body and the movements it is capable of. Yvonne Rainer isn't concerned with beauty or smoothness, just movement. It is an interesting take on dance, since I think these days mainstream dance is very stylized and even overdone at times.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that at its heart, dancing is simply movement, I think the thing I enjoy so much about dance is its ability to form connections and communicate something. So when Rainer says "no to involvement of performer or spectator", I don't quite understand. Doesn't a performer perform because they want to share and connect with others? Even if dancing is a "diary", as Eliot says, I think we keep diaries because on some level we want to share the information. Otherwise, we would just keep it internalized. Nothing is compelling unless we feel *something* towards it. Otherwise, what is to motivate the dancer to keep dancing, and the spectator to keep watching?
~Megan Ouyang
This performance was something I never seen before. After, listening to Alicia discuss in class, I could see a lot of work is definitely influenced by Rainner at UCSD. She strips everything away in her piece (emotion). Some people discussed in class that they were focusing on certain parts of the body. I agreed with this statement presented in class and really found that my concentration on the lower part of the body. Movements were very engaging and yet so different. Thus, I was able to point out the flow of gravity taking her at times and this reminded me of what we experiment in class after our body scans. Very different from Graham, but I enjoyed it and personally found a lot of similarities to what I experience in the “space” in class as well as in the improve exercises as Megan had mentioned.
ReplyDelete