Karlien's reply
>X-POP3-Rcpt: [log in to unmask]
>Return-Path: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 00:01:56 +0100 (BST)
>From: Karlien van den Beukel <[log in to unmask]>
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: Karlien van den Beukel <[log in to unmask]>
>To: matt <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: cris dancing (fwd)
>
>Was the backchannel intentional? The discussion group is so quiet that one
>might as well ask these interesting questions in the open, also as others
>might be able to respond better than I can. It'd be good if you could to
>resend your post to the discussion group. Anyway, for what it's worth,
>here are some rejoinders:
>
>> >Most
>> >of the discussion seems to have evolved from or toward the concept of
>> >dance as the Yeatsian "Unity-of-Being" and dance's non-ulitarian rhythms.
>> >This Romantic, indeed Nietzschean (for example his writing on the dancer
>> >in "Also Sprach Zarathustra") concept of the dance is surely related to
>> >Aristotle's Poetics.
>>
>> I don't doubt that this is possible but was curious as to where exactly the
>> relation might be located in your eyes, which aspect of Aristotle's poetics
>> were you thinking of?
>
>
>Poetics. 2.3 "The development of tragedy" (its "improvisatory beginnings"
>in the dithyramb). See infra. The mediating text I was thinking of, is of
>course "The Birth of Tragedy". I am not suggesting that Aristotle posited
>the idea of "Unity-of-Being", rather that Nietzsche reads the dithyramb
>(his major source for the dithyramb must have been Poetics 2.3) as a
>now-lost "Unity-of-Being" (see B of T, chapter 2). I wished to suggest
>(not more than that) that issues of 'Being' and 'Nature' in relation to
>dance (so far discussed in terms of experience) have a
>non-phenomenological philosophical genealogy too.
>
>> >
>> >Yet I prefer to think of the dance as an aesthetic practice, as a *text*.
>>
>> And, though it is a common enough move perhaps, I am always curious as to
>> why this _prefer_, why this preference? What incline is established within
>> this move?
>
>Not as common as you may think. See last reply.
>>
>> And the reason I wrote, perhaps, and would inquire, is this comment here, at
>> the end. I was unsure how this worked at all, how the 'space defined by the
>> dance' could extricate itself from a constant struggle not to be understood
>> in terms of a cartesianism. How, for example, it can operate as a 'definer'
>> and then perhaps have the power of naming (hence the connection to text)?
>> It seems that the space 'sketched' (even to use 'defined' is to introduce a
>> prior framework of understanding it seems to me) or 'present-ed' or 'lived'
>> is precisely understandable through a certain affect that precludes us
>> understanding it as text. Hence my curiousity.
>>
>Yes, 'defined' was a term which was not definitive at all. Derrida's "The
>Double Session" on Mallarme's 'Crayonne au Theatre' is the essay to
>(re)read. How would you define this 'certain affect'?
>>
>> the discussion is also curious to me as the ideas relating to dancers I
>> haven't seen are somehow, themselves, undecidable without seeing the dance,
>> but certain dance I have seen can perhaps relate.
>
>In that case, you would find Mallarme's ideas related to Loie Fuller
>undecidable. Furthermore, no one in the discussion (apart from cris) cited
>dances as texts. That specificity got erased almost as
>soon as the discussion took off. I wondered whether the discussion got so
>phenomenological because not many people had seen the contemporary dance
>form that initially started the discussion (Yvonne Rainer and, via her
>work, contact improvisation). I think they *have* seen that style if they
>have read (the style of) the poetry project called 'Gravity as a
>Consequence of Shape'. Is the idea of a common style (where the being present
>of the poet-observer Allen Fisher functions as a mediating "=")
>far-fetched? I do not know, but the question interests me enough to prefer
>to think of dance as text.
>
>Karlien
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[log in to unmask]
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/matt_lee
"here, then, once"
Eye for an I (I4i) - on going drafts of work in progress sent to whoever
wants it
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|