Tuesday 10 October 2017

October 9th 2017

Been pondering about positivist and non-positivist stand-points. I think deep down in me, I do subscribe to the non-positivist view. I like being inquisitive and I love talking about different issues and see where the discussions can lead us. I like hearing what others have to say on a certain subject. Coming from the viewpoint of pragmatism that is programme is framed sits well with me - I like looking at different options and seeing different viewpoints.
However, what is different to get around my head is while there are different options and viewpoints and each has its worth, but the notion of not necessarily arriving at any conclusion, concrete or not, and being secure that it is also ok to end with a question, can at times leave me unfulfilled and even a little frustrated. Even the notion of researching and not finding an answer can leave me wanting to go on - even if it's to find something concrete. I suppose that is one of the points of researching - to keep looking, keep asking, keep being curious. The difference with me is I do want to find that answer eventually (and part of me believes there is an answer to be found).
Coming from a classical dance background, where there is a goal and one works (or do the exercises) to achieve that goal, it is hard to not work to expect an end result - to know what the end result is and work towards achieving it. Does that make dance training positivist? Specifically in the training of classical ballet where there is a 'right' and 'wrong' (to a certain extent), and we work towards that 'certainty' or end result - is that being positivist?
However, research has shown (and in the practice of 'best practices'), that although there might be an 'end result' that we might strive for, there are many different ways of arriving and getting to that 'result'. I think past experiences ( both physically and in life) can contribute to how our physical body responds to corrections or specific ways of executing movement. If our physical self has 'embodied' our past experiences, and experience is knowledge, then each individual will have its own way of moving or executing movement. So while the 'movement' might be the same (as required in a choreography), there will be different ways to arrive at getting that particular 'movement' or indeed, a  different way of interpreting that movement - due to our past experiences and embodied knowledge. I believe that is quite common in the realm of contemporary dance but how can we reconcile that in the realm of classical dance, where so often dancers have to move together as one entity or the very point/reason of a certain sequence is in the beauty of a group of dancers dancing as one? Can each dancer still be autonomous within a group? Or is that now old fashoined and dancing together or moving as group has no place anymore in contemporary choreography (even if it's 'contemporary' ballet choreography)?
So - within the backdrop of dance pedagogy, can the training of dancers (both classical and contemporary) be both positivist and non-positivist? Can we encourage dancers (and dance students) to be autonomous while at the same time work within the framework of 'pragmatism'? For surely, we want dancers (and to train dance students) to be curious and make choices, to be individual, finding and making his or hers own mark and thus hopefully making his or hers own contribution to the wider world.

Would love to hear any thoughts on this....

3 comments:

  1. Ditto.
    I do also believe a dancer needs to be able to dance within a group and won't necessarily step into solo roles straight away. If the Ballet is synthesized then he/she needs to be adaptable to the choreographers wishes. (In the same way an actress has to be able to play multiple roles and learns to be versatile). But, not at the expense of lacking in individuality. I suppose it's a case of striking the balance between 'positivist' and 'non-positivist' whilst training your body to strive for excellence through ordered structured technical classes through examinations and rigorous syllabus classes in the same way as an athlete but also to be enriched with the skills to be able to grow as an individual, embodied through past experience and life lived with the help of the teacher to nurture each individuals individuality!! As dancers and not pure sportsmen, irrespective of genre we need to inspire creativity so dance can evolve further from the here and now. But to further our original choreographic ideas well this has to involve experimenting with existing steps already learnt and eventually we will find new steps/patterns/positions and planning this can be quite 'positivist' in it's approach. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is very interesting post. As a bellydancer, my viewpoint is different, because our dance form based on the traditional style which is transformed by the individual interpretation today. This improvisative form can lead the dancer to an unexpected movement so it is similar than the non positive research approach because there can be various answers for a question. Your viewpoint is very different, as I remember, when I learnt ballet, I felt almost the same but I think that, even if ballet is so structured, it has to be graceful and soft so it has to be filled with emotions what can the memories provide to the dancer. This emoitions can be thousands of variation, so this approach is leading me behind the movment and steps. I think that, it is more about inner way of experiencing than the physical implementation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, I don't have any clear cut, positivist type of answers to share ;)

    But in all seriousness, I've pondered very similar things recently. To some extent, I think ballet is just self-selecting--people with a high tolerance for fitting a mold work well in classical ballet, and people without such tolerance (me for one!) gravitate towards contemporary ballet or modern where there's more room for differing interpretations.

    I do think the last hundred years or so of ballet history is pretty much the same debate though. To what extent can we shift classical ballet before it becomes contemporary, and where is that line? Obviously ever fluid and debatable! Even in what is obviously a classical ballet, Wheeldon's Alice in Wonderland, there's some very, very contemporary sections in there, so quite a mix.

    But that's in performance; training is another matter. It's one of my favorite topics so I will restrain myself from typing endless paragraphs. ;) I'm so tired right now that I don't think it would turn out very clearly!

    ReplyDelete