Dance Articles > The arts aren't important

Discussion in 'Dance Articles' started by awaitingxxpeace, Nov 23, 2009.

  1. dancemominaz

    dancemominaz New Member

    Engineering inspiration comes from the brain

    Art's inspiration comes from the soul
    Sohel Rana likes this.
  2. Ray Sison

    Ray Sison New Member

    So well put... :cheers:
  3. TangoRad

    TangoRad New Member

    This is a huge topic and I wouldn't even know where to begin. I do know that arts enrich kids in ways that no other academic subjects do. The arts should be subsidized, to some extent, as the arts are symbol of a society's creativity. But because it's hard to quantify for future job performance, it's easy to dismiss.

    My wife teaches drama to kids who have never acted before. You would be amazed at what this does to them, how it brings them out of their shell, makes them reconsider career choices, and nurtures their creative side. It's truly amazing.
  4. Ray Sison

    Ray Sison New Member

    Good thoughts on this! And I like your avatar...
  5. jestefeste

    jestefeste New Member

    ok, my turn for my 0.05 cents....
    just responding to bits and pieces i'm reading. i will go slightly Randian.

    arts is important not just to teach creativity but also to help individuals identify, claim ownership and even "exercise control" over their own values (especially metaphysical ones.) without the arts, there is no proper framework for people to grasp the subjective. it helps people find their place so that the world around them is more meaningful to them.

    i am not taking away the importance of the arts to teach creativity (which is now proven to be important not just to artists but to businesses and large corporations) but the benefits of being a well-rounded individual will ultimately benefit the society the individual is in. the benefits of learning dance alone are endless, from healthy living to better memory to sharper minds.

    responding to how we should let markets dictate the funding, can i throw this idea out. how about jumping on the creative commons bandwagon. if art begets art, then the more "ideas and creations" we put out there, there more the pool will grow. this will lead to an industrialization of the pool and then the monetary rewards will follow. if the initial pool has no following, then it might be true that the "ideas and creations" have not proven to create any real value as yet.

    (.....btw, if i am stuck on an island by myself, i won't mind a dancer or an engineer, but my first priority would be.......matches!)
    (okie dokie, back to lurking. hope you're not yawning. ywia.)
  6. TangoRocks

    TangoRocks Member

    What she said. Ditto danceronice. The priorities argument above, and the science funding point from danceronice are very cogent ones. Don't get me wrong, I do support arts funding but I do get frustrated with people who surmise artists are somehow inherently superior to the rest of the mundane folks and knowing how to paint is more important than, say, knowing how DNA works. I have been trained as an engineer and there is no lack of funding for engineering--but there is a huge lack of funding for basic science. Governments at all levels use the same rationale they use to cut arts funding to cut science funding--basic science is not really good for anything (commercially, and immediately, that is) so "ordinary people" don't want their money spent on, say, a Superconducting SuperCollider just so some egghead physicists can play with subatomic particles. The same Mr. Harper pontificating about cutting arts funding has already cut science funding last year, so this is not a big surprise.

    Also, all the artists I know are artists not because they expect to become rich through their art, but because they can't NOT be artists, pardon the double negative. For every best-selling author getting six-figure advances there are a thousand or more scraping by, for every grammy winning singer, there are thousands who are trying to make ends meet but persist in singing while they hold down day jobs. Maybe we should go back to the renaissance practice of having wealthy patrons of arts rather than depending on governments whose only long term plans involve winning the next election?
  7. tanya_the_dancer

    tanya_the_dancer Well-Known Member

    That's an intersting idea. Although with commissioned artworks, I guess sometimes they are too personal to have meaning for anyone else. Like all those portraits in the museums. They really have no meaning for anyone except families who had them painted (probably due to lack of photos in those days). Or for example, my brother-in-law commissioned a painting of their two dogs as a wedding gift to my sister. While it was a very thoughtful gift and I think it was a great idea on his part, and the painting looks great in their home, but as an artwork, that painting has no meaning except to them and their relatives, because for the rest of the world it's just a painting of two border collies by an unknown northwest artist.
  8. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member

    Well, we already have patronage of the arts by the wealthy (I don't think it ever stopped).

    As far as paintings go, it's not the subject matter that necessarily makes great art, it's great artists. Many of the paintings by Rembrandt and the like were commissioned--heck, the Mona Lisa is just a portrait of some rich merchant's wife. If da Vinci painted a picture of your brother-in-law's two dogs, just so he could hang it on his wall, it'd be worth a fortune
  9. jestefeste

    jestefeste New Member

    in your opinion, what makes the artists great, in the first place?

    (tried to ETA but quote button is not working)
  10. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member

    They can do something with their art that few others are able to?
  11. jestefeste

    jestefeste New Member

    this is slightly off-topic....

    now you are making me curious as to who do you think are great artists and what is it they did that most can't.

    in my country for example, dance went completely radical and too bizarre at one point. we have regular dance festivals (mostly for modern/contemporary) featuring invited troupes from all over the world. some foreign choreographers and even audience members commented how it seemed the only people enjoying certain pieces in the festival are the dancers themselves because the audience just didn't get it. i guess you could say these dancers/choreographers did something that not many could but it didn't do anything to the audience, so the point was kinda lost along the way.

    and then sometimes you get really technically accomplished dancers, and then they get comments like they're too robotic. they could do things not many could but they still have not earn a spot in the great column.

    then you pick up a dance textbook and they do the history of dance and do write-ups of great choreographers/dancers, and sometimes i go, "huh? says who?"

    i have also considered arguments about how the reception to a piece of work determines its greatness. but then we also have great composers who were granted the "ahead of their time" status because despite their greatness, they died a poor man's death and were buried in unmarked graves. they can do something unique with their art but they were only recognized hundreds of years later. who knows how many "great composers" there are that we haven't discovered. and how many dancers/choreographers we are ignoring today that will be considered great hundreds of years from now.

    sometimes i am wary of these arguments because there are also artists who would create whatever they feel like because they want to leave "their legacy" and they believe they are ahead of their time.

    so, i thought i'd ask, just to add on to my ideas bank, who other people in the field might consider great and what did they do to earn that.
  12. TangoRocks

    TangoRocks Member

    Hi Jestefeste!

    Not sure I welcomed you to DF yet, but welcome to DF anyways :)

    My take on dance "textbooks" is similar to yours, as in "huh?" I tried reading some books purportedly teaching Quickstep since I LOVE that dance and I KNOW I need a lot more practice to get better in it, and when I read the book, I was like, ummmm, what?

    I guess I learn more visually than verbally, as far as dancing is concerned.

    Also, "technically accomplished", to me, does not mean "great"--I have danced with "technically perfect" dancers who were no fun to dance with, so... I think you need to feel the dance inside you before you can actually do it naturally and effortlessly, and darn all the style & technique police! If you do what you FEEL is right and you have FUN doing it, I think that's all that counts. Of course, YMMV. :) (obviously, speaking from a purely social dancing perspective--if you are dancing competitively, you ignore the style & technique police--otherwise known as "judges"--at your own peril ;))

Share This Page