David Blanton- In-Class

In class last Thursday we watched a clip of an interview with a British actor who was sharing his insights on theater and drama. One of the quotes that we honed in on and discussed during the class was a comment he made concerning the audience's participation in the plot. He suggested that one of the fruits of excellent theater is the merging of two plots: that of the play itself and that audience's own personal plot. Such a phenomena occurs most successfully and completely when the audience member has a cathartic experience while watching the play. The actor's observation offers insight into audience participation (v. spectating) in the art of drama. In my own experience seeing and acting in plays I have often observed that people (myself included) want deeply to connect with the play. The audience wants to see itself in the characters and the arc of the story so much so that the performance is often rated by their ability "to connect" with the drama.

There are two things that I would like to draw out from this observation. The first is based on personal experience. I have often found myself trying to deeply to connect with a drama as an audience member that I have actually been distracted by the main action in the play, focusing instead on one or two characters I identify with. I feel myself trying to stitch aspects of my life into the plot of the play. When the connection finally does occur, the British actor would presumably assert that this is the second plot. However, even before that happens in some cases, there is a struggle to find that connection which in and of itself creates an entirely seperate plot from my personal cathartic moment and there is actually a unique arc created by my struggle to connect. Hence, it would seem that the audience's participation can be further divided into 2 plots: the legitimate cathartic experience which influences the trajectory of their own life, and the struggle during the play to connect personally with the drama.

The second is more of a question. Does the audience's tendency to critique plays based on their cathartic connection to the plot indicate a egocentric perspective or art, or does it indicate a natural desire for humanity to want to participate in beauty and art? Perhaps this uniquely happens in theatre because it most closely physically replicates the human experience, drawing out feelings of empathy and community with the art itself as it is being produced.

John Tyler -- Participator vs. Spectator (2-26-13)

Participator vs. Spectator -- Class reading

Van der Leeuw asserts, “In writing about dance, I discovered that, even more than in other arts, participation is necessary if it is to be understood” (12). 

Every human hungers for beauty.  The depth of the soul is not satisfied with the mere knowledge of beautiful things, but instead it longs for a personal encounter with the act of beauty - art.  This reality raises the contrast between experiencing beauty through participating in the ritual versus observing or spectating the art being presented.  Here the first approach is taken to be considerably more complex and desirable then the latter, seeing that participation is necessary in order to grasp beauty in its many forms. 

Beauty is revealed to those willing to participate.  If one desires to vicariously worship through another individual’s expression of worship, they become a spectator and not a participant.  Up until 2 years ago I rarely danced.  Even when I mustered up enough courage to step out on the floor, my actions were still fear based, worried about being judged.  Recently, however, I have acquired an entirely different mindset and attitude toward dancing.  Now, experiencing the fullness of joy and freedom of dance as I move unhindered and unbounded, I encounter the Beauty.  Only through this type of participation, can something so profound and enjoyable be grasped. 

Thrones of Beauty

A recent story may be of interest ...

In the south-central region of Madagasgar, near Ambalavao, is a native tribe that's remained fairly isolated from civilization.  One unusual custom they've had for a very, very long time has been to create a new throne for each new chieftan that's as absolutely beautiful as they can make it.  The throne of the previous chieftan is then placed in the attic of the royal hut.

Recently, a chieftan passed away and a new throne was requested.  The best artisans of the village worked tirelessly for weeks to create the throne, as it's been kind of a symbol of the good fortunes they wish for their tribe.

Finally, on completion, they held their innauguration ceremony.  The new throne - amazingly beautiful - was presented to the new chieftan, and, as custom dictated, he took his seat on it ... as the old throne was elevated into the atic of the royal hut.  However ...

The old throne turned out to be "the straw that broke the camel's back" - and the attic, with many, many old thrones came crashing down ... killing the new chieftan and the entire leadership of the tribe.

Being somewhat mystical in their beliefs, they asked an old wise man who was not in the royal hut what the meaning of such a disaster could be.  His response ...

                "People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones."

(Sorry about that ... I've just been itching too long to do it.  Stu Rose)

John Tyler - Awareness Leading to Action (2-15-13)

Awareness Leading to Action --  Class Reading

Life is full of sensory experiences.  We are constantly surrounded by noise, images, and smells.  In Van der Leeuw’s detailed study of dance, he explores this reality by focusing on a human’s reactions to rhythm.  By attaching the dance to the totality of human culture he is arguing, “The dance is indeed the movement of man in the literal sense, but it is not his natural movement, being rather the specifically human movement created by him. It is ordered movement” (14).  When man acknowledges rhythm and invents a response, he is creating culture.  Here, Van der Leeuw is not referring to the negative connotations associated with culture, but to its literally meaning of “grinding something to a finish.” He suggests we are possibly seeking for ourselves a place outside the course of the world.  I agree and can relate to this notion that humans are programed to create and fashion.  Unlike Van der Leeuw, however, I perceive dance, in its most pure form, as entirely natural.  With every step and purposeful movement, a rhythmic flow is created.  We enjoy this experience because we connect with something greater then ourselves.   

David Blanton- Dance as an Intrinsic Desire

The first part of Van der Leeuw's book deals with dance, its origins, place in religion and culture, and how it has changed through the ages. The most primitive forms of dance can be seen now as expressions of the unity between all things. Dance was simultaneously religious, agricultural, economic, and erotic. At the very end of the unit on dance Van der Leeuw writes:

"For van Lelyveld is not wrong in saying that in the West the feeling for rhythm has almost died out. Yet that is a theological mistake; for in the Bible, movement is everything; God is movement. His Spirit broods over the waters of chaos, his pillar of fire leads through the desert, his prophets bring disquiet to a people that loves quiet, his Son comes down to earth, his Spirit drives. His creation is no clumsy peice of work, but a progression into the world."

Evidently, rhythm and dance are an inherent part of creation. Man cannot escape it. It is in the rising and falling of the sun, the ebb of the tides. God designed the world in rhythm, in movement. Man then is compelled naturally to move. He cannot help but participate in the natural movement of things.

However, Van der Leeuw has highlighted how this participation with movement has been largely lost in the West, excluding the busyness of daily life. My question then, is has man's desire for movement really been lost? Or is it too intrinsic for him to truly severe himself from it? 

I would argue that man has not lost his desire for dance. The question now then is where is this desire manifesting itself? In the busyness of daily life it hardly seems like man has time for dancing. Yet, it could be found in modern man's desire for routine and fixed schedule. Perhaps the constant movement and flow from different responsibilities subliminally reminds man of his place in the ordered movement of the cosmos. 

Dan Gilbert: The Tower of Babel

http://i.imgur.com/znzrBrK.jpg

Joel Hagstrom-Reflection on Art as an Expression

In the Nature of Art, the chapter concerning R. G. Collingwood refers to art as expression.  Based off of Collingwood's thoughts it can be said that expressing one's inner thoughts, by speech, to another individual incites the same emotions in the person listening, if done effectively.  By effectively communicating thoughts to those around the individual, can it be considered art if the same emotions expressed by one individual are then felt by another? Is communicating effectively through words an art form? In relation to works of art (paintings, sculptures, etc.), is an object only considered art if the work itself is expressing the artist's feelings to those around him/her?  Art is effectively used as a means of communication to the world around us, showing how we view certain objects, and how we are feeling.  Collingwood shows us how through the expression of emotion, art is created.

Zakiya Cummings: Presentation vs Participation

In class we have been discussing beauty within art through presentation and participation. In my paper I went down the route that the two go hand in hand. Let me explain, participation usually comes from a desire to want to encounter more than what was presented to one in the first place, but if there was no presentation where would this natural human desire come from?

Does desire for participation originally come from a presentation?

(ust a simple post)

David Blanton: Reflections on the Unity of Dance and Religion (Van der Leeuw)

"The great difficulty, indeed the tragedy of our modern life, lies in the fact that we differentiate between the things which concern us and things which do not concern us. We are musical or we are not; we are religious or we are not; we are concerned with economic affairs or we are not. We have our "job" and our "free time"; we drive off on our vacations and stare at the natives come to us and cannot imagine what these people are about in all their buildings....In a word, we have lost the unity of life."

Primitive man saw no distinction in the different actions he performed. It was neither work, nor dance, nor religion, but it was all life. There were not compartments in his mind of the different areas of his life. In fact, the dance itself embodied this unity. It was dancing that brought the community together, dances that brought them closer to the sacred. Vondel writes:

"As air through many organ-pipes is guided,
One spirit is to many toungues divided,
In equal time through field of equal sound,
Where Church and God together dance the round. 
The angel hosts from heaven's height descending
Dance deeply down, our sacrifice attending,
About Christ's body on His altar-stone"

The purpose of dance is to bring unity. Even today, there is a culture around different dances. People learn the dance from videos on youtube in order to participate in the dance with their friends. More than unity though, the dance connects us with the divine. Yet, in some senses the dance has also become profane. Instead of growing up in the culture and having it become a part of the culture itself, few participate in the dance or see it as a means for connection with the divine. Rather, dancing often revolves around mindless sensuality and is viewed as purely recreational.

If this is true, is it fair to ask if dancing in this sense of sensuality is still "art," and if it is still art, is it profane art? Can there be such a thing as profane art?