View Full Version : Does good technique equal artistry?
We are dance education degree students doing a research project on whether good technique equals artistry, and would value your views within the next 36 hours!!
Shooshoo
09-02-2005, 05:48 AM
If you consider artistry as creativity, then I wouldn't consider good technique as artistry.
If you consider artistry as excellence in skill, then I would consider good technique as artistry.
fascination
09-02-2005, 06:06 AM
the best art requires skill and deliberation and accuracy...it is what separates good from excellent...and nice from beautiful.....true art is technically excellent IMO and it is what we all spend so much time on in practice....you can't embellish bad technique and call it good art...thats just and ugly box with a pretty bow on it
Thanks for your reply, but what is the best art? Is it the nost technically accurate? Is it the dance where not a 5th position was out of place, where there were beautifully placed arabesque lines, or was it the dance that you were able to connect with on an emotional level. Did you go away from it thinking wow, she has great turnout, or wow that really hit an emotional home run, I really got the message the choreographer was trying to express.
On the other hand, you could ask whether the reason that message was put across so effectively was due to a high level of technical ability or otherwise.
You could even take for example Margot Fonteyn. She was an artist, there is no doubt about that, she brought something quite special to the stage and was able to really connect with the audience. But she was not as technically strong and accurate as many dancers today, yet they still can connect with the audience. Does this suggest that while technique can help artistry, artistry is not dependent on technique??
fascination
09-02-2005, 07:16 AM
IMO artistry is not depndent upon PERFECT technique, but it is wasted on poor technique...just as perfect technique with no affective component is a complete snore....since for me the emotive part is the easy part, I know that it is the technique that I must practice so that I can "sculpt" what I feel in my dancing in a way that displays both with maximum effect....
randomMysh
09-02-2005, 07:17 AM
I think technique is a tool, and artistry is the goal. Having good technique makes self expression easier, but it is the self expression itself that is the basis of artistry. I have seen technically excellent dancers who did nothing but their technique. I have also seen technically mediocre dancers who have managed to connect with the viewers and each other despite their lack of skill.
Swingolder
09-02-2005, 08:34 AM
No. Artistry is based on talent, I think. No matter how much I conquered the technique of dance, I don't have the basic talent that would give it artistry.
Just like in any of the arts, a painter can really have the technique down, but that doesn't necessarily make him/her a great artist.
Medira
09-02-2005, 08:59 AM
I believe that good technique can exist without artistry and artistry can exist without good technique...however, one without the other can leave the audience feeling like they're missing out on something. I believe that there needs to be both in order to be considered a truly good dancer.
kdogg
09-02-2005, 09:27 AM
There is no doubt that good dancers need good techniques. Technique may be essential part of artistry, but artistry is more than technique. Technique can take you only up to a point, from where creativity and imagination take over. And emotion play a major role in creativity and imagination.
Shooshoo
09-02-2005, 09:41 AM
Having good technique makes self expression easier, but it is the self expression itself that is the basis of artistry.
I totally agree.
Shooshoo
09-02-2005, 09:41 AM
Having good technique makes self expression easier, but it is the self expression itself that is the basis of artistry.
I totally agree.
ChaChaMama
09-02-2005, 09:51 AM
Technique and artistry are separate categories.
Truly horrible technique may interfere with the expression of artistry. (For example, if a Broadway singer is singing a well-known song off-key but with a lot of feeling, then yes, I will probably be too distracted by the technical faults to concentrate on the emotion.)
Yet there can be technically faultless but rather bloodless performances.
There can also be performances that may not be technically perfect, yet are very movingly performed. Again, to give an example from musical theater, I cried THREE TIMES during my college's production of "Working." I am sure that there are more technically talented singers, lighting designers, sound designers, etc. on Broadway than at my college, but this production was very well done and the parts were very passionately performed. I LOVED it.
Similarly, I sometimes have a favorite latin dance couple that does not win the event, possibly because of technical issues, but to my mind got across the character of each dance better than the winners.
:) ChaChaMama
you can have excellent technique, dance perfectly, and be totally dry and boring to watch.
in my opinion to consider something art it has to invoke an emotion within you. either when doing or when watching.
it is possible to dance technically perfect and not have any emotion or cause emotion. that would be an example of good technique without artistry.
on the other side... you can have artistry without good technique. but good technique allows us to duplicate the art and achieve a higher understanding of what we are doing.
Its great to read all your replies, this topic has really pulled a lot of strings with us, and I can see it has with you.
Initially our group decided that no, good technique does not equal artistry, but through our research and this forum, we now feel more satisfied by the stance that you can have good technique without artistry, and you can have artistry in the absence of good technique. However, while they can occur independently of each other, they can also work together to produce amazing results.
Have any of you heard of the theory of multiple intelligences? If so do you think it applies here? Do you think that there are seperate intelligences and therefore seperate opportunities for the development of technique and artistry??
Do you think your stance on this type of statement comes through when you evaluate performances etc you go and see. If you are a technique junkie, do you go and concentrate on the level of technical ability displayed, or do you go and concentrate on the total, artistic effect, and then question later whether this was brought about because the dancers had good technique.
theory of multiple intelligences? that's interesting... i'd like to hear more.
about evaluating performances, when i go to a performance i'm there for enjoyment, not to judge the dancers. so i put myself in the mindset of trying to enjoy the artistry. i look at the performance as a whole and try to "feel" what i am watching.
when i go to a competition its a little different. i'm trying to think as the judges and pick my favorite couple to advance. then i'm looking at technique, strength, execution, difficulty, cleanliness, etc.
tacad
09-02-2005, 11:04 AM
I don't think they are equal. I do see art as something that takes place within the context of technique. Or said another way, you make the technique artistic.
cornutt
09-02-2005, 02:17 PM
Have any of you heard of the theory of multiple intelligences? If so do you think it applies here? Do you think that there are seperate intelligences and therefore seperate opportunities for the development of technique and artistry??
I've heard of the theory of multiple intelligences, and truthfully I don't much hold with it. Part of that is because of the way it's being misused by the education establishment. But, more importantly, I don't buy that the two things -- artistic skill and technical skill -- are really all that separate; rather, they are two aspects of the same thing. Yes, different people have preferences and habits in the way that they prefer to look at the world, and this translates into emphasizing certain skill areas sometimes at the expense of others. But I think that, at a fundemental level, it's all intelligence. The differences are largely in what we decide to do with it. I've seen enough bright people over the years who totally changed from one career area to another, and were successful at both, to make be believe that specific talents are not as inborn a thing as most people think.
I'll give you an example: Some of you from my age group might have heard of a guitarist named Jeff "Skunk" Baxter. In the '70s, he played guitar for several A-list bands of the day including the Doobie Brothers and Steely Dan. What's he doing now? Believe it or not, he's a top-rated defense intelligence consultant! (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111689939107541385-T1C1_KcKkptag_hP_yftX_XzRkY_20050701,00.html?mod=b logs) He took his innate intelligence and the things that he had learned up to that point and transferred them to a completely new skill set, very successfully. I think the existence of people like Skunk Baxter tends to disprove multiple intellgences, as currently theorized.
As for artistry vs. technique, you can probably see where I'm going with that now: I think that, with a few exceptions, a person who masters one can master the other if they care to put in the effort. Yes, is possible to be a successful artist without the best technique. It is also possible to be successful (at least in the financial sense) as a technician without creativity. But it's the artist who has both nailed who can really go above and beyond. There's an experimental figure skater whose first name is Gary, and unfortunately I've forgotten his last name. What does an experimental figure skater do? Well, in this case, he uses four skates... two on his feet and two on his hands. Being able to skate on his hands obviously opens up a new realm of possibilities. But it's no good if you can't do something with it. Fortunately, this Gary guy was already an amazingly creative skater before he came up with the four-skates thing. I've seen a tape of him doing two four-skate routines, one with a partner, and they are amazing -- I've never seen anything else quite like it. The point is, he already had the creativity, and he gave his creativity a new place to expand into by mastering a new (and very difficult, I'm told) technique. A person who has developed only one aspect or the other could not do what he does.
kdogg
09-02-2005, 03:50 PM
Have any of you heard of the theory of multiple intelligences? If so do you think it applies here? Do you think that there are seperate intelligences and therefore seperate opportunities for the development of technique and artistry??
I've heard of the theory of multiple intelligences, and truthfully I don't much hold with it. Part of that is because of the way it's being misused by the education establishment. But, more importantly, I don't buy that the two things -- artistic skill and technical skill -- are really all that separate; rather, they are two aspects of the same thing. Yes, different people have preferences and habits in the way that they prefer to look at the world, and this translates into emphasizing certain skill areas sometimes at the expense of others. But I think that, at a fundemental level, it's all intelligence. The differences are largely in what we decide to do with it. I've seen enough bright people over the years who totally changed from one career area to another, and were successful at both, to make be believe that specific talents are not as inborn a thing as most people think.
I'll give you an example: Some of you from my age group might have heard of a guitarist named Jeff "Skunk" Baxter. In the '70s, he played guitar for several A-list bands of the day including the Doobie Brothers and Steely Dan. What's he doing now? Believe it or not, he's a top-rated defense intelligence consultant! (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111689939107541385-T1C1_KcKkptag_hP_yftX_XzRkY_20050701,00.html?mod=b logs) He took his innate intelligence and the things that he had learned up to that point and transferred them to a completely new skill set, very successfully. I think the existence of people like Skunk Baxter tends to disprove multiple intellgences, as currently theorized.
As for artistry vs. technique, you can probably see where I'm going with that now: I think that, with a few exceptions, a person who masters one can master the other if they care to put in the effort. Yes, is possible to be a successful artist without the best technique. It is also possible to be successful (at least in the financial sense) as a technician without creativity. But it's the artist who has both nailed who can really go above and beyond. There's an experimental figure skater whose first name is Gary, and unfortunately I've forgotten his last name. What does an experimental figure skater do? Well, in this case, he uses four skates... two on his feet and two on his hands. Being able to skate on his hands obviously opens up a new realm of possibilities. But it's no good if you can't do something with it. Fortunately, this Gary guy was already an amazingly creative skater before he came up with the four-skates thing. I've seen a tape of him doing two four-skate routines, one with a partner, and they are amazing -- I've never seen anything else quite like it. The point is, he already had the creativity, and he gave his creativity a new place to expand into by mastering a new (and very difficult, I'm told) technique. A person who has developed only one aspect or the other could not do what he does.
Amen to that. Well articulated.
Big10
09-02-2005, 06:07 PM
through our research and this forum, we now feel more satisfied by the stance that you can have good technique without artistry, and you can have artistry in the absence of good technique. However, while they can occur independently of each other, they can also work together to produce amazing results.
Yes, I agree.
By the way, though, something that hasn't been addressed in this discussion yet is what it means to have "good technique." I suppose many people might say that "good technique" is based on commonly accepted standards, but I think it's equally valid to state that "good technique" is whatever helps the individual person achieve the desired result on a consistent basis. In any activity that involves moving the human body, no one technique can be applied to our vast array of body types to achieve the exact same result. The focus can be on either the process or the result, but we should be clear that both definitions of "technique" do exist.
To use a sports analogy, there are commonly accepted teachings for how a person should hold a baseball bat with the greatest likelihood of hitting a baseball. However, some of the best hitters have had different styles of swinging the bat and, in some cases, a batter may become so successful with his individual technique, that it then sets a new standard from which others copy as a general technique. One of the most famous sports examples along those lines is the "Fosbury Flop," which totally revolutionized the sport of high-jumping, when one guy decided to jump backwards over the bar instead of sideways. The goal was simply being able to jump higher than anybody else, and Dick Fosbury decided to do it using a "technique" that consistently worked best for him, rather than how Olympic champions had been doing it for decades. Examples from dancing might include the way that certain women choose to spin, sometimes holding their arms or head in a position that differs from what is taught in most classes.
In the context of dancing (and the topic of this thread), I think that neither "good technique" nor "artistry" are absolutes, but are largely dependent upon the intended audience. Just another way of saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If a couple is in a judged competition where eye contact is one of the listed technical criteria for what it means to dance "well" or artistically, then it behooves them (if they want to win) to hold their heads facing each other, rather than performing steps where the couple might feel that the music itself tells them to look apart. On the other hand, if the competition is based on crowd applause, then the steps you learned to precision in a ballroom studio might not be as effective as occasionally disregarding the beat of the music and inserting tricks you learned when you were a young gymnast.
In any event, art without any sort of technique (general or individual) is simply "luck." Consistent production of art definitely requires technique. Conversely, though, consistent and rote application of perfect technique will not always produce "art," because I think that art usually requires something extra to invoke the observer's emotions.
madmaximus
09-02-2005, 10:51 PM
Artistry is the employment of technique--creatively.
One's command of technique and creativity ultimately dictates the level of (quality of) one's artistry.
True artistry makes technique unseen.
Because true technique is effortless.
It hides quietly underneath the vibrancy of one's expression.
m
fascination
09-02-2005, 11:25 PM
totally agree and the art is already in the soul...you either have an innate capacity to convey it or not....and I don't at all diminish it's primacy....more like it is a given neccessity...but when poured into painstaking attention to technique it becomes it's fullest...make sense? very late and tired....totally agree that it is essential
Are technical skill and artistry aspects of the same thing in some circumstances, but not others? If you have the technical skill to be a doctor maybe, or chemist, is it true that because you have this technical skill, that you have artistic skill also, because they are part of the same thing?? Or do some people have one side that is more developed than the other? This all leads on quite nicely to nature versus nurture, which takes me on yet another tangent from the original topic.
Thank you for all your great discussion points,
Keep em coming, I think this is a great topic for discussion, it is very contentious and there are so many points along the spectrum where peoples views fit in!
tacad
09-03-2005, 11:06 AM
Isn't this a right-brain left-brain thing? Not that I'm even remotely qualified to discuss this.
Ms_Sunlight
09-03-2005, 02:29 PM
Cute. I hope you're going to credit DF when you hand the project in.
Big10
09-03-2005, 02:53 PM
Cute. I hope you're going to credit DF when you hand the project in.
I can just imagine a professor reading the following footnotes....
1. madmaximus
2. cornutt
3. Ms_Sunlight
4. Ibid.
5. Big10
6. ShooShoo
(etc.)
Obviously a collection of well-respected academic sources! :wink: :lol:
madmaximus
09-03-2005, 03:35 PM
Are technical skill and artistry aspects of the same thing in some circumstances, but not others?
IMO...
Technical Skill is the ability, or the potential.
Artistry is the employment of that skill--creatively.
Art is the resulting expression of that artistry.
Thus, artistry requires technical skill (however rudimentary that skill may be).
I cannot think of an instance that proves to be the exception to this rule.
If you have the technical skill to be a doctor maybe, or chemist, is it true that because you have this technical skill, that you have artistic skill also, because they are part of the same thing?? Or do some people have one side that is more developed than the other? This all leads on quite nicely to nature versus nurture, which takes me on yet another tangent from the original topic.
It is easy to confuse craftsmanship with artistry.
Craftsmanship is the level of quality of one's technical skills.
Craftsmanship is acquired (therefore, technical skill is acquired).
Artistry is inborn (and therefore, with training, can be magnified).
Art cannot be defined.
It can only be appreciated.
madmaximus
cornutt
09-04-2005, 02:38 PM
True artistry makes technique unseen.
That's an excellent way of putting it. You can observe and appreciate a good work of art, without paying any notice to the artist's technique at all. (If this wasn't true, artists would never be able to communicate with anyone that wasn't familiar with the techniques of that art. Since no one can possibly master all of the techniques of every art, that would restrict the potential audience enough to make art itself rather pointless.) In fact, with a good work of art, if you are interested in technique, you have to make an effort to look for it. Technique in a good work of art will never slap you in the face -- that is, unless the artist wants it to!
fascination
09-04-2005, 02:45 PM
I think madmaximus has truly said it all here ...amen
cornutt
09-04-2005, 03:03 PM
Are technical skill and artistry aspects of the same thing in some circumstances, but not others? If you have the technical skill to be a doctor maybe, or chemist, is it true that because you have this technical skill, that you have artistic skill also, because they are part of the same thing?? Or do some people have one side that is more developed than the other?
Some people definitely do have one aspect more developed than the other. The question of why this is so is a very deep one. I tend to think that most people have the ability to develop both, to at least some extent, but personal preferences and/or life circumstances may lead some people to focus on one side or the other. Consider the case of someone who does traditional, repetitive assembly-line work for a living. In days gone by, when there were a lot of such jobs around, many people doing this kind of work seldom got a chance to develop their artistic sides, unless they made an effort to do so on their own time. After all, one of the fundemental principles of the Henry Ford-style assembly line, and one of the things that made it work, is that a particular task be done exactly the same way every time.
On the other hand, I think that in many jobs, and it's especially true today, there is a lot more creativity than is generally realized. Or at least there should be... take the doctor example. A doctor's task might involve first examining the patient's symptoms, and then applying a set of principles to decide what, if anything, is wrong with the patient and what should be done about it. The doctor might go through a mental checklist or set of heuristics to try to classify the patient's symptoms, but given the huge range of possible human maladies, there is no "cookbook" approach that will work. At some point, the doctor may have to rely on his or her creativity to take a set of previously unforeseen conditions and envision its possible relationships to a range of remedies. (An aside: A lot of people don't realize that, in the USA at least, if a drug is legal for a doctor to prescribe, then it is legal to prescribe for any condition that the doctor feels it is appropriate. This may include conditions that the drug manufacturer didn't envision or test for. It's called "off-label" prescribing, and the reason that it remains legal is precisely what we've been talking about -- the collective intelligence and creativity of the medical profession is huge compared to the relatively tiny percentage of researchers that are employed by drug companies. This collective intelligence can and often does come up with ideas that the drug researchers would never come up just because there aren't enough of them. The FDA doesn't want to restrain this creativity becuase doing so would slow down progress in medicine generally.)
Lots of jobs today require, at a minimum, this kind of "detective" creativity. The traditional rote assembly-line jobs are disappearing. There are still assembly lines, but nowdays, with the amount of automation in factories and the larger numbe of models of a given product being produced in shorter runs, even assembly line workers have to have this "detective" creativity. It's no longer enough for them to just know one step in the process; most plants require assembly workers to learn and be familiar with multiple tasks, to know how these tasks play into the whole system, and to be able to diagnose when the part of the process that is visible to them isn't working right.
So it's an interesting subject, not just for artists, but for nearly everyone.
Ms_Sunlight
09-04-2005, 05:36 PM
Obviously a collection of well-respected academic sources! :wink: :lol:
Hehe. Actually, the practice of citing web sites in academic papers is well established.
To answer the question, as far as I'm concerned, artistry is technique. The two words come from much the same place, one from Latin and one from Greek, but in at least one meaning, they're synonyms.
It's a matter of human effort and human methods creating something which is not found elsewhere in nature.
The important question, to my mind, is what makes the results of our artistry -- or our technique -- beautiful and interesting to human beings.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.