Amanda (was Aziyade)
Well-known member
Don't you hate it when you lose posts like that? I started doing mine in Word, just so I'd at least HAVE it if the forum flopped.
The college kid who fails a class on purpose because he's scared of completion -- yeah, it happens, I'm sure. I think there's actually a psychological disorder that manifests this way. The perception may exist, but is it the norm? I don't think so.
I wrote: I think I might have to disagree with you that we can't (or don't) have an agreed-upon criteria for determining the boundaries and expectations of this dance.
A'isha writes- This is one example. I have studied with Alexandra King and her whole philosophy is different from mine. She has a "We are Americans and we can do whatever we like approach to the dance. I have heard her say that..
Ok, now I follow you.
But I'm talking about developing a "Criteria for determining boundaries and expectations" and TALKING about dance intellectually.
One of the issues we have to address when talking about it (because it's the prelude to determining the actual boundaries of the dance) is the idea of "Ownership" of the dance.
We have at least a few different approaches to "ownership" of the dance in America.
One approach is Alexandra's, as you've quoted it. (I never studied with her directly, so I don't know, but I'll assume you're quoting her accurately.) What you said here is also said by many dance teachers, but let's call it Alexandra's approach: As Americans, we own the dance we do and can therefore add to it or subtract from it or modify it in any way we see fit.
(Although actually I'd like to challenge Alexandra and ask her if she TRULY means anything goes, or if there is a point at which she would stop considering it bellydance. It might be interesting to hear her thoughts on the matter, or Delilah's, who also seems to have a similar attitude.)
Another common approach is to say the Arabs own it, since we all know it as Arabian dance. Another approach is the person who says "Bellydance is only something done by Egyptians and therefore only Egyptians can claim "ownership." Sometimes we narrow the focus a different way and say only WOMEN can claim ownership.
Another approach seems to be closer to what you (A'isha) espouse and that's that it's owned by those who actively study and immerse themselves in the Arab culture, whether they are themselves Arab or not.
Why does "ownership" matter? Because "ownership" of the dance dictates who gets to set the boundaries of what is NOT bellydance, which is the precursor to setting the boundaries of what IS bellydance.
I'm curious -- when I mentioned that I was reading old Arabesques and seeing discussion, you warned me to read with a grain of salt (which I always do anyway). But what I was getting at was even back then, in the 70s and 80s, bellydance was being SERIOUSLY discussed as something more than just a mundane hobby or trivial pastime.
Example from today -- making greeting cards. Nobody is yet taking this seriously as an art form. Sure it's fun to do, but nobody is looking at it critically. It's a trivial pastime.
I wrote: I don't agree that "formalization" of instruction would in any way inhibit discussion about the differences between Fifi and Mona Said, for instance. ... Darci didn't dance like Gelsey any more than Fifi danced like Mona, but that doesn't inhibit discussion about it.
A. writes- Then give it a try.
A'isha, we HAVE been doing this. We've been doing this for the longest time, both here, on Bhuz, on Sausan's forum, on the MEDance list, on Gilded Serpent, etc. I think that's why those forums exist! (and to sell costumes)
You wrote:
In a different part of this forum, Andrea says that the Egyptian dancers have different styles. I disagree with that. They have the same style with different accentuations and different variations on movement, but the feeling and essence and style is readily recognizable as Egyptian.
What does "style" mean -- ? I mean, I keep harping on this because I really honestly think it's the root of all of our communication problems. We HAVE to define the terms we use, especially when they're vague ones, like "Style" because to me, "style" IS EXACTLY "different accentuations and different variations on movement." Obviously, that's not how you define it.
You wrote:
Only a small part of that is how they utilize movement. Do you see how elusive an intellectual description of that is?
I think it's only elusive because we haven't defined the word "style" and what is meant by movement utilization. I'm not saying these are RELATIVE terms, but that we are each using them to mean something different enough that it's keeping us from moving the discussion forward.
You wrote:
A. writes- The problem arises when the discussion becomes more important than the dance itself, and that seems to happen often in academic circles.
Okay, I'm not sure I've experienced this, other than the I Just want to make cardigans syndrome LOL.
Obviously I like discussion, but I would not want to be boxed into a situation where a professor gets to decide what is important to the discussion and what is not, a grade based on how well my thought mesh with his or hers, where discussion overtakes the life of the dance.
I'm not sure where this is coming from. Are we still talking about certification for teachers, or just discussing art in the academic venue?
There are established models for how a liberal arts education SHOULD be, but I won't try to pretend that those aren't followed by every professor, especially the bitter ones. I have never personally experienced any kind of pressure to just vomit back on a test the prof's ideas and beliefs and not my own. If this is the kind of the liberal arts "education" you've had, I don't blame you for being suspicious of it, or of instructor certification!!
You wrote:
A. writes- I hope you will talk to Morocco about how she has at least once been deemed as unqualified to teach in a university setting.
Per accreditation standards of the ACICS, I am no longer able to teach comp classes at the community college here because I didn't finish my masters. I could, however, teach at a similar college in Henderson, Kentucky. Doesn't mean I'm unqualified. Just means I didn't finish the degree and they need that degree to keep their accreditation. I'm cool with that. I can't teach dance for fitness at my university's fitness center without ACE or AFAA certification. I figure it's an insurance thing. Doesn't bother me.
SHOULD accrediting boards have final say over who gets to teach? That's a whole different debate, but frankly I'm in favor of it because I think it prevents people from wasting their money on diploma mills that don't really teach them anything.
You wrote:
I would also say that they can have the freedom to discuss outside of academia, and that is entirely different than having someone tell them what they will teach for the purposes of accreditation, etc.
Agreed. University politics is brutal.
BUT, if we're talking about dance teacher accreditation, I doubt that any ruling body would develop a syllabus and say "you must teach this." Dance Masters doesn't, and it's one of the biggest ones for dance schools. Rather they say, "teachers must have learned this" before granting whatever status they grant.
You wrote:
A. writes- I do not think anyone here is against discussion. I am personally against formalizing that into a process where the dance itself is regimented in the way it is taught.
I don't understand how we got to this point??? On the subject of teacher certification we moved to dance in academia, but I don't see any difference between having a set syllabus and the above. You teach a certain way, I'm sure, because I've read your articles. You say there are 10 fundamental movements in belly dance. Isn't this a regimented way of looking at it? See my confusion?
(I think a lot of this is because we don't know each other and can't see each other's classroom approach. Too bad we can't do virtual classroom visits!)
The college kid who fails a class on purpose because he's scared of completion -- yeah, it happens, I'm sure. I think there's actually a psychological disorder that manifests this way. The perception may exist, but is it the norm? I don't think so.
I wrote: I think I might have to disagree with you that we can't (or don't) have an agreed-upon criteria for determining the boundaries and expectations of this dance.
A'isha writes- This is one example. I have studied with Alexandra King and her whole philosophy is different from mine. She has a "We are Americans and we can do whatever we like approach to the dance. I have heard her say that..
Ok, now I follow you.
But I'm talking about developing a "Criteria for determining boundaries and expectations" and TALKING about dance intellectually.
One of the issues we have to address when talking about it (because it's the prelude to determining the actual boundaries of the dance) is the idea of "Ownership" of the dance.
We have at least a few different approaches to "ownership" of the dance in America.
One approach is Alexandra's, as you've quoted it. (I never studied with her directly, so I don't know, but I'll assume you're quoting her accurately.) What you said here is also said by many dance teachers, but let's call it Alexandra's approach: As Americans, we own the dance we do and can therefore add to it or subtract from it or modify it in any way we see fit.
(Although actually I'd like to challenge Alexandra and ask her if she TRULY means anything goes, or if there is a point at which she would stop considering it bellydance. It might be interesting to hear her thoughts on the matter, or Delilah's, who also seems to have a similar attitude.)
Another common approach is to say the Arabs own it, since we all know it as Arabian dance. Another approach is the person who says "Bellydance is only something done by Egyptians and therefore only Egyptians can claim "ownership." Sometimes we narrow the focus a different way and say only WOMEN can claim ownership.
Another approach seems to be closer to what you (A'isha) espouse and that's that it's owned by those who actively study and immerse themselves in the Arab culture, whether they are themselves Arab or not.
Why does "ownership" matter? Because "ownership" of the dance dictates who gets to set the boundaries of what is NOT bellydance, which is the precursor to setting the boundaries of what IS bellydance.
I'm curious -- when I mentioned that I was reading old Arabesques and seeing discussion, you warned me to read with a grain of salt (which I always do anyway). But what I was getting at was even back then, in the 70s and 80s, bellydance was being SERIOUSLY discussed as something more than just a mundane hobby or trivial pastime.
Example from today -- making greeting cards. Nobody is yet taking this seriously as an art form. Sure it's fun to do, but nobody is looking at it critically. It's a trivial pastime.
I wrote: I don't agree that "formalization" of instruction would in any way inhibit discussion about the differences between Fifi and Mona Said, for instance. ... Darci didn't dance like Gelsey any more than Fifi danced like Mona, but that doesn't inhibit discussion about it.
A. writes- Then give it a try.
A'isha, we HAVE been doing this. We've been doing this for the longest time, both here, on Bhuz, on Sausan's forum, on the MEDance list, on Gilded Serpent, etc. I think that's why those forums exist! (and to sell costumes)
You wrote:
In a different part of this forum, Andrea says that the Egyptian dancers have different styles. I disagree with that. They have the same style with different accentuations and different variations on movement, but the feeling and essence and style is readily recognizable as Egyptian.
What does "style" mean -- ? I mean, I keep harping on this because I really honestly think it's the root of all of our communication problems. We HAVE to define the terms we use, especially when they're vague ones, like "Style" because to me, "style" IS EXACTLY "different accentuations and different variations on movement." Obviously, that's not how you define it.
You wrote:
Only a small part of that is how they utilize movement. Do you see how elusive an intellectual description of that is?
I think it's only elusive because we haven't defined the word "style" and what is meant by movement utilization. I'm not saying these are RELATIVE terms, but that we are each using them to mean something different enough that it's keeping us from moving the discussion forward.
You wrote:
A. writes- The problem arises when the discussion becomes more important than the dance itself, and that seems to happen often in academic circles.
Okay, I'm not sure I've experienced this, other than the I Just want to make cardigans syndrome LOL.
Obviously I like discussion, but I would not want to be boxed into a situation where a professor gets to decide what is important to the discussion and what is not, a grade based on how well my thought mesh with his or hers, where discussion overtakes the life of the dance.
I'm not sure where this is coming from. Are we still talking about certification for teachers, or just discussing art in the academic venue?
There are established models for how a liberal arts education SHOULD be, but I won't try to pretend that those aren't followed by every professor, especially the bitter ones. I have never personally experienced any kind of pressure to just vomit back on a test the prof's ideas and beliefs and not my own. If this is the kind of the liberal arts "education" you've had, I don't blame you for being suspicious of it, or of instructor certification!!
You wrote:
A. writes- I hope you will talk to Morocco about how she has at least once been deemed as unqualified to teach in a university setting.
Per accreditation standards of the ACICS, I am no longer able to teach comp classes at the community college here because I didn't finish my masters. I could, however, teach at a similar college in Henderson, Kentucky. Doesn't mean I'm unqualified. Just means I didn't finish the degree and they need that degree to keep their accreditation. I'm cool with that. I can't teach dance for fitness at my university's fitness center without ACE or AFAA certification. I figure it's an insurance thing. Doesn't bother me.
SHOULD accrediting boards have final say over who gets to teach? That's a whole different debate, but frankly I'm in favor of it because I think it prevents people from wasting their money on diploma mills that don't really teach them anything.
You wrote:
I would also say that they can have the freedom to discuss outside of academia, and that is entirely different than having someone tell them what they will teach for the purposes of accreditation, etc.
Agreed. University politics is brutal.
BUT, if we're talking about dance teacher accreditation, I doubt that any ruling body would develop a syllabus and say "you must teach this." Dance Masters doesn't, and it's one of the biggest ones for dance schools. Rather they say, "teachers must have learned this" before granting whatever status they grant.
You wrote:
A. writes- I do not think anyone here is against discussion. I am personally against formalizing that into a process where the dance itself is regimented in the way it is taught.
I don't understand how we got to this point??? On the subject of teacher certification we moved to dance in academia, but I don't see any difference between having a set syllabus and the above. You teach a certain way, I'm sure, because I've read your articles. You say there are 10 fundamental movements in belly dance. Isn't this a regimented way of looking at it? See my confusion?
(I think a lot of this is because we don't know each other and can't see each other's classroom approach. Too bad we can't do virtual classroom visits!)