One of the things that makes dance so interesting is that it is such a wide canvass. Thus dance clearly can be a sport, as with competitive ballroom dancing and sport dancing teams.

But I agree with citibob that it makes little sense to include ballet, flamenco, kathak etc as sport. While they share the physical prowess of athletes, these dancers and choreographers have much more in common with painters and sculptors and thus it is an art.

There are occasions when a competition structure is imposed on these art dance forms, but it is controversial and sometimes has the effect of emphasising the technique aspect and neglecting artistry. For instance, I saw a winner of an important ballet competition recently and her technique was as strong as you could wish for. But artistry was sadly lacking in the performance.

Sport by definition judges competitors against some standard to produce a winner ie goals scored, points awarded and so on. It's not fruitful to look at dance this way in my view; the fundamental question is: "What is the artist trying to achieve." And thus completely different interpretations may be equally valid and it makes no sense to compare and say that one is better than another or "the winner".

Dance is not a sport because if desired it has the ability to reflect society and the nature of the times in which we live. It can be seen as more about the choreographers beleifs rather than about the actual dancers themselves making it comparable to drama which would never be classed as a sport. The portal for communication is different but nevertheless even abstract dance reflects where people are coming from in th etime in which we live whereas sport largely is just a competition based totally on the body.

Lildancinjill - How about this? If you define a sport an an athletic endeavor that takes a marked amount of physical and mental discipline, then you can make a case for dance being a sport. ( If you include the spiritual aspect, you may even make a case for it being a suprasport). Having competition may not be a necessary condition for calling something a sport - for example climbing Denali for 3 weeks is not competitive, but would make the definition of a sport in most people books.

That's a poor definition for a sport because it does not include non-athletic sports such as race car driving.

Also, I would not say call climing Mt. Denali a sport. I would call it an athletic activity. Same with going to the gym. Same with biking around town --- although it CAN attain a sport-like quality in Boston.

Actually, the reason I proposed this definition was to include race car driving - driving a car at 180 lb miles an hour for several hours takes a huge amount of physical skill and stanima, not to mention concentration. Perhaps we could expand the definition to include the practice or preparation that is involved in achieving competence - this would exclude biking around town, but would include mountain climbing, scuba diving, etc.
( Remember I am just trying to come up with some discussion points for her paper - could one of the themes for her paper should be how culturally Western society tends to define sports - perhaps inappropriately- by a win loss critieria? ).

Hi there. I have recently come upon this topic at my school. Being brought up a cometition dancer primarily I was raised seeing dance as more of a sport although I also had the understanding that it was an artform also. At my school, competition and any talk of dance as a sport is a big controversy, so much thati plan to hold a debate on it next semester. However i do have one bit that I think you could benifit from, it is a quote from Lynn Swann from thePittsburgh Ballet Theatre that states "In any big city, we need culture as well as industry, art as well as sport." I took this quote to mean that dance is and should be considered both. As much as the art of dance is extremely important and should be taught and acknowledged firstand foremost, it may also be seen as a spots since no matter whatfield of dance you are in, it is a competitive world that you must audition and exhert an infanite amount of energy and drive in. I hope this (long) message helped some, I would love to know whatyou think of this.

Dance is a sport and sport is art. If you have ever seen the competition in an audition between dancers it is sometimes more fierce then any football event. And if you have ever seen an olympic mile runner from algeria like Nordine he is the most graceful thing I have ever seen. They are one in the same, there is a "GOAL" and it is common to both types. It is the goal of making yourself the best whatever you are that you can be. That is the only goal that any of us should have. As for choreography telling what society is feeling or whatever that was, that is just crazy, choreography is just someone expressing their own views of life through other people on the stage, and that's it. If it was a reflection of society they would be building stadiums for 100,000 people for dance and not for baseball. There is no relation of society in either relm. It is mearly entertainment or an escape for people to go to that they may relate to more.

Exactly a choreographers own beleifs and views derive from the fact that he or she is a living human being in this world at this present time, therefore whatever their chorepgraphy, escapist or not it is a reflection of our time. Look how contemporary dance or ballet differs from 100 years ago or even 30 years ago there is so much progression beacuse the world changes and all art reflects that. There are even parralles between dance, drama, art and music as you trace thier development throughout time. But baseball and other sport is nearly exactly the same it hasn't changed. I don't really understand you comment about the stadium,I think you mean if dance was a sport it would be in a stadium. Because it is an art it is in a theatre and doesn't attract as many people as sport because it is more than just a game and some people cannot relate to that or don't want to.

Baseball and other sports have changed a HUGE amount in 100 years.

like how?

The rules. The equipment used. The training. The expected standards of performance. The interactions with spectators (for spectator sports). The cultures surrounding the sports.

Oh my god! I have to agree with citibob with that last comment. But as for the stadium comment I made, I meant that it is the amount of people going and seeing the event. In the 70's and 80's just as many people saw dance as sport, 60 mins. (a TV show) did specials on dancers around the world. Even the muppets had Nureyev on. My question is why? Why is it gone? I dont know why there is not promotion on every media to get ballet or any other style into the mainstream anymore. Dont tell me about the defection thing of the russians, that was a part of it but not all of it. These people changed the world of theatrical art. Why is no one doing that anymore? When I was in Chicago performing with Larry Long, we did our shows in a theatre of 5000 people and it was sold out every night. So it is possible for alot of people to come to dance events but why isnt that the norm any more? It is also amazing to me that people that have never experienced anything other than dance as entertainment hate other past times so much. Is it that people are jealous of the money basketball players make or what? Because the super stars of ballet arent starving anywhere in the world either. So what is it? Why cant a world series or a world whatever be profound in someones life? Why are there opinions that if it isnt inspired from some "artistic" being it is not valid? I was a "normal" person for a while before my dance life, and I have to say I am so happy of that because I learned to have more open eyes to more of the world around me and THAT DOES inspire my artistic vision.

Point taken! I think basketball players are happy with basketball being just a sport and of course theres nothing wrong with sport, this is only my personal opinion but i just feel whilst dance demands the athletic qualities of a sport that it is only one tiny element of what goes into creating a dance performance and can never describe it as a whole. There are so many other artistic elements that make a dance performance art such as set lighting costume e.t.c What is it that makes gymnastics and dance different? One is a sport, one is art but why?

Because in the sport, competition is the entire point; in the art, such competition as exists is a means to an end.

There's competition in any endeavor, in any profession. Doctors compete; lawyers certainly compete. That by itself doesn't make those professions "sports".

Likewise, there are other professions that require physical ability (piano moving comes to mind) but are not "sports".

<small>[ 12 April 2004, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>

hmm... what do you all think about "cirque de soleil"? is it art? pure exhibition? is exhibition art? i had this argument with a friend a few months ago, so i'm curious of other opinions.

it seems people have been struggling to define art for centuries. there are something like 12 entries in the dictionary, the first being "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature" (from dictionary.com).

<small>[ 15 April 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: summerjh ]</small>