|
My comments are based on the state of dance, particularly ballet, in the United States.<P>There is no organizing body for dance in America.<P>Dance is certainly athletic, and I would consider dancers to be athletes. However, I would be hesitant to call dance a sport, for the reasons Stuart Sweeny mentioned.<P>It was explained to me like this: Fitness, Sports and Dance all share a certain focus on training the body physically. However, they differ in their goals. The goal of fitness is to build the body to its maximum working potential in certain ways. The goal of a sport is to do something faster, longer, farther, etc than someone else (eg running, swimming, diving, etc), or score points against an opponent (football, boxing); overall body function comes second. The goal of an art such as dance is ultimately theater.<P>This difference between fitness, sport and dance becomes apparent as training continues. In the beginning, dance training is very fitness-oriented: how on EARTH do you put your body in those crazy positions, and is your knee feeling OK today?<P>Later on, you become more used to it, and start thinking about goals: move the leg towards the corner of the room, walk in a circle, etc.<P>But for the really experienced dancer, all the previous things come as a matter of course, they've been practiced so much. It is assumed that you can do whatever steps will be needed. The focus during rehearsals and performance is purely artistic.<P>Again, just because ballet involves intense physical activity, and just because dancers are athletes (in my opinion), does not make it a sport. Nor does the fact that many things developed in ballet are also necessary in football make football an art. The goal of dance is theatrical, the goal of footbal is to score points. If you look great on the field but you don't score points, you're a lousy football player. If you don't look good on stage it doesn't matter what you do, you're a lousy dancer. That's the key difference.<P>There is debate on who stands a chance of success. Success in ballet requires the development of dozens of areas in oneself, both physical and psychological. Some people are "naturals" at some things: for example, one student may point her feet easily, another may have natural "stage presence" even as a young child, another might have an intense focus and discipline at a young age.<P>Traditionally, many of these factors are taught in a ballet training program, and some are not. For example, it is never assumed that you can do tendue naturally (although a very few do). On the other hand, stage presence is not usually taught: it is believed that either you "have it" or you "don't" in those areas.<P>Oftentimes, ballet training assume you're already adept at "natural" forms of movement: it builds upon their mastery, but does not try to teach them.<P>Much more can be taught than most people probably believe. Stage presence does not involve any difficult physical feats, so in theory, everybody is capable of it. A few teachers try to analyze these things and teach them. Obviously, the more required factors a teacher is able to teach, the more true it is that all students have "equal" chance of success.<P>No matter how well trained the dancer, some will still have an easier time than others in the business. As a woman, it's just harder to get hired if you're tall. But dancing is never easy for anyone, and those who really want to do it badly enough usually find a way.<P>There is certainly sexism; look at past threads in the Issues forum.<P>The US government provides no funding, although some states do. In Massachussetts, it is distributed, I believe, by a committee of representatives from arts organizations in the state.<P>Most funding is private, and private donations usually go to well-established organizations. Hence, money begets money. It is very difficult to build a new dance organization; this aspect of the system could seriously endanger American artistic innovation over the next century.<P>Most of the ballet organizations with money are both schools and professional companies. Schools are sometimes profitable, professional companies really are not, not even the most successful companies. Private donations and subsidies from the associated schools pay the balance for the companies. Both schools and companies promote interest in and involvement in dance.<P>To find the elite dancers, just look at the principle dancers in the major ballet companies: NY City Ballet, American Ballet Theatre, San Francisco Ballet, Bolshoi, Kirov, Paris Opera Ballet, Royal Ballet, etc. By and large, these are the only dancers you might consider "well paid" by normal standards. Elite ex-dancers are a bit harder to find, but they can be tracked down too.<P>There are only a few elite dancers; otherwise, they wouldn't be elite. I believe the word "elite" rules out large quantities. For example, today's "good" runners perform about as well as the "elite" runners of 100 years ago.<P>In Russia, I'm told, elite dancers ARE celebrities; I suppose Russians are really into their ballet. But in America, no one cares about ballet, so it's very rare that a ballet dancer will become a household name. Baryshnakov and Nuryev are probably the closest any dancer has come to celebrity status in America.<P>Baryshnakov made a movie, "White Night", that explores some political connections. But as I said before, dancers are so low-profile in the society at-large that it's largely an a-political pursuit.<P>Dancing has progressed to pop culture, just as music has. For example, watch Madonna in concert: you'll hear music, and you'll see dancing. Of course, pop music is different from "high culture" music, and pop dancing is different from "high culture" dancing. You might rephrase your question as, "why is high culture not more popular?", and look at the broader cultural spectrum: dance, music, literature, painting, etc. Ultimately, I think you'll find yourself asking, "why will many people work hard to live in a big house and drive an SUV, but very few will work hard to produce beautiful art?" There's profound insight into the modern world in the answer to that question.<P>Again, dancing doesn't have mass media coverage because the masses don't care about it. Sorry to sound so cynical. But actually, dance regularly feature on the front page of the New York Times "Arts" section.<P>OK, I've given some help, as have others. I'd love it if you could share your paper when you're through with it. I'm interested in seeing what you've dug up, and what you had to say.<BR>
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
