forwarded after being originally sent backchannel
I have also forwarded Karlien's reply
matt
>Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 17:47:44 +0100
>To: Karlien van den Beukel <[log in to unmask]>
>From: matt <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: cris dancing (fwd)
>
>snipped off a ot of interesteing bits, the comments on the Woo films were
ones that definitely felt at home
>
>>3rd August
>>
>>I know this has got away from the main thread of the discussion. 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?
>
>>The common basis for poetry, dance and music is
>>rhythm. Indeed, the now lost dithyramb, (the choric dance/poetry metre
>>from which tragedy evolved) essentialises in Nietzsche's later writing
>>Zarathustra's Dionysiac, at-one-with-nature, dance.
>>
>>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?
>
>>
>>Unity-of-being, beyond Cartesian dualism ("do I play the drum, or does
>>the drum play me?") is fine, but the space defined by the dance, that, I
>>think, is the most interesting.
>
>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.
>
>I do hope this is not taken as a
>
>whatever thing
>
>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.
>
>ttfn
>
>matt lee
>
>
>
[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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|