'Is Contemporary Class Bad for Dancers' Technique?'
I recently came across this article on social media and wondered what other think of this
'Is Contemporary Class Bad for Dancers' Technique?'
http://www.dancemagazine.com/contemporary-class-dancers-technique-2534522470.html?share_id=3314866
This is something I have discussed several times with colleagues, students and peers and it brings me back to thinking about the relevance, use and teaching of technique such as Mattox, Luigi, Limón, Horton (the list is endless to mention them all) within dance training today. Are these styles and techniques relevant? How does the industry today affect/effect training given. Teaching in the Vocational HE and private sector training dancers wanting to progress into a career it makes me shudder when students have not heard of the above people or the likes of Fosse, Cole, Robbins, Graham etc
Would be interesting to hear some thoughts/opinions on this!
Hi Garry, I've also come across this article in social media. While I find the generalisations in the article a bit problematic, it is definately an article that triggers discussions. Dance training is becoming more and more eclectic and individual, I feel. Young dancers face a much bigger palette of choices regarding their training. Which is great and challenging at the same time. I think that engaging with "older" techniques, as much as including contemporary and somatic practices , can deepen their understanding of dance and open new ways to look at their practice and help them to make informed choices regarding the directions they wish their careers to take and finding their own voice in dance.
ReplyDeleteThis is just another way of looking at which ballet technique/school is the best. Is RAD better than Ccechetti or Vaganova or Bournonville? A recent conversation with a professor of ballet at a university in the US was enlightening as she has just decided ballet is not rigid technique and involves many qualities used in modern/contemporary dance. Technique is vital as it is relevant to history and may be the only way a person/student learns how the body moves.
ReplyDeleteAs a comparison to quantitative vs. qualitative research one might ask does technique/facts influence any questions or additional potential truths sought by the student.
I agree I think that 'older' & 'traditional' techniques compliment somatic and other approaches and enhance a students training and the history is just as important to deepen their understanding. I just find it frustrating that some students do not always show an interest in these and the historical impact these techniques have had upon today's methods and training and style. They just want an instant fix with no regard to the techniques, progression, roots of techniques etc.
ReplyDeleteThis is an idea I'm playing with for a research inquiry...
How weird to read that article and find out that one of my former classmates was heavily interviewed (Amy Morrow)! I really appreciated her comments.
ReplyDeleteAnyways. There were a lot of really odd assumptions in that article. 1) That modern class has no technique. 2) That the only reason why someone would take a modern class is to enhance their other (apparently more legitimate) technique, and its corollary of 3) That modern dance isn't a pursuit in and of itself but only exists to serve other dance forms.
I find that last assumption the most perplexing. Modern dance is a huge field with plenty of companies and choreographic opportunities all its own. But have the authors never taken a Graham or a Horton class? If those aren't techniques then how are they defining it? But I think a huge area of confusion in the article is the blend that modern often achieves with somatic practices. In a lot of styles of modern now, it's hard to distinguish where "dance" ends and the "somatic" begins, perhaps because they aren't so different after all, but that's another topic. As to "technique," there's a lot of styles that are not codified, exactly, but have a very clear technique of their own--catch and release, initiation, breath, weight. There's a lot of wrong places to initiate from in Bartinieff X work, for instance.
But *even if* all of those assumptions were true, I still would say no. I teach both ballet and modern, and I am a huge, huge advocate of it for ballet dancers exactly because of all the things the article mentions derogatorily. It teaches you to use your breath, weight, initiation. It teaches you improvisation, choreographic skills (depending on the teacher), and how to tune into your body's signals. For the devoted bunhead, which was me going into college, it teaches an entire new way of moving that has made a huge difference in how I approach ballet, and I consider myself a much better ballet dancer because of it. What out of all of that is not useful? I argue that it's really crucial, especially today; there are very, very, very few companies out there that don't have pieces in their rep that at least push into contemporary ballet, if not full-out modern. I can't speak to the world of Broadway; that's not my area of expertise, but those are my findings thus far with ballet dancers.
I'm surprised I only wrote a few paragraphs and not a full-length book... it is an area I am quite passionate about!
*I use modern instead of contemporary because contemporary has a lot of other connotations in dance and I find modern to be a clearer term.