I don't know about you, but I hang my art at the exhibition.

Dance is not a sport. The famous playwright Peter Shaffer, once said that acting is like "being naked on stage with your skin turned inside out". The same goes with dance in my opinion, because dance is acting; a form of theatre. When i am on stage i feel emotion-Pain, anger,happiness,remorse,guilt,etc......in order to portray the character and his emotions. On stage, the technical aspect of dance becomes secondary. When you are on that stage it your job as a performer to make the audience feeling something. when they watch you, they should be able to recognize themselves on that stage. If the audience walks out of the theater, thinking about how great of technical skill the dancer posessed, then the dancer has not fully done his job. Theatre reflects life, it should be a window into our soul. for example, in Giselle, if the audience does not feel any emotional connection to Giselle or Albrecht, then the ballet is pointless. When I dance a role, I not only work on the technical skill required, but on the character. I make sure that I know the human being i am portarying because if i dont know, then for sure the audience will not know. Also, a choreographer CREATES something, just like a painter or a composer. The rules are not layed out to a choreographer.
When we think of the greatist Artist of our era: rudolf nureyev, erik bruhn, margot fonteyen, Mikail baryshnikov, balanchine, tudor, merce cunningham, chuck green, nijinsky, fokine, ashton, soili arvola, leo ahonen, petipa,ailey etc, when we think back on these people, we would not say that they were the greatist athletes of their time, no......we would say that they are some of the greatist artist who ever lived. Sports do not posess the same aims as art. There is no winner/loser in art at its truest form. Every art form requires some form of technique. Painting, music, theatre, etc.......all require some form of skill, but that does not qualify it as a sport. it is only the nesesary tools to enable you to achieve your aims as an artist. dance is not a sport.

You know, there is another huge difference between sports and dance, especially ballet. Athletes take risks but are not always expected to succeed whereas dancers take risks and are expected to nail it everytime.

But of course there are some instances in sports in which a bad mistake could end an athlete's place on the team (my condolences to the English but what on earth was Steven Gerrard thinking gifting Thierry Henry with a backpass?).

My opinion:

If you are talking about pro-dance, then dance is definitely art. Performers, are telling stories, conveying emotions, or maybe just doing something beautiful to watch. This is art. Athleticism is a mean to an end.

If you are talking about people that do things like go to dance classes, attend performance workshops, and perform in non-pro dance shows, my opinion is: If they get fit to dance, they are doing art; if they dance to get fit, they are doing sport. Most people dance because they like it, so, I guess, they are doing a bit of both.

WARNING: I am using the word “art” in a very loose way, otherwise we'll have to discuss what is a what is not art, and I am not going there .

<small>[ 14 June 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: daniel ]</small>

Daniel, do we need to look at the "pro" criterion again because of competitive professional/top amateur ballroom dancers, for instance.

<small>[ 14 June 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Stuart Sweeney ]</small>

Stewart. Yes, probably.

I don't know much about ballroom dancing.

Competitive ballroom dancing looks to me more like a sport because the aim is to compete. On the other hand it does not require a fitness level as high ballet/modern/jazz dance.

What about non-competitive ballroom dancing and social dancing in general?

I am starting to be dubious about how useful this categorisation is. Is chess a sport? Is Jazzercise a dance?

<small>[ 14 June 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: daniel ]</small>

I was just talking about the Don Qs with Cynthia Gregory and Fernando Bujones during the early 1980s. At the Met, we called them Olympic competitions. Both dancers would try to outdo each other. It was great fun. These were two of the great technical dancers of their time. Of course Don Q is the type of ballet that you can show off !!!!!
But seriously, performance dance is high physical dance. Yes, but also art. Choreograhy and the positions a dancer learns over the course of a dancer's career make it high art. A dancer has to land with a plie, but also with the required cleanliness and body position. A dancer has to put out sometimes extreme physical energy, but cannot show it like other athletes.
I think that some friendly competition can up the ante, like the Corsaires of 2002 at the Met.
Acosta, Corella and co. danced at such a high energy level, that it reminded me of those Don Qs with Cynthia and Fernando.

Thanks for that, leftyvaldes. For all the criticism levelled at the current ABT for relying too much on star power at the expense of the corps, the one thing you do get when the stars are on is the excitement of performances that push the limit.

Could it be that Liljill was trying to make the case for making dance a "sport" in schools so that boys might be more likely to take part in them? Heaven knows one of the biggest problems American dance has is that boys shy from it as a "girl thing," which has translated into a drastic shortage of good male professionals. For heaven's sake if it means getting more boys interested in dance, call it a sport!