A rose by any other name?

[Caroline_afifi]

Gilded Serpent presents...
So, If You Cut up a Rose, is it still a Flower?

Fusing Bellydance With Other Dance Forms
by Rebecca Firestone

posted March 14, 2009

Aside from some typical guidelines such as 7-minute time limits, the rules specified no live music, and the music chosen had to be either “alternative or non-traditional for the styles of dance you are performing”. Middle Eastern dance itself wasn’t banned, exactly. But it was definitely downgraded, now considered to be only one of many possible elements, as well as ethnic and modern, which performers could tap into as a source of inspiration.

A reader’s position at this point will depend on whether you think that bellydance and Middle Eastern dance are one and the same, and whether you feel any particular sense of ownership over either one of those terms.

Nowhere on the competition web site was the word “bellydance” itself defined. However, the judges could clearly see when contestants were using bellydance and when they weren’t, as could I.

So somehow, somewhere, in some collective unconscious that we can’t describe in words, we all agree tacitly at least on what bellydance is. For the purposes of the remainder of this article, I’ll define “bellydance” as “uses a lot of undulations” to distinguish it from “Middle Eastern dance” which is itself an umbrella term that doesn’t actually convey much.

The judging criteria shows what they felt was most important and included congruence between costume, music and styling, audience connection, whether the fused elements made sense together, the use of new “boundary pushing” concepts in dance, musicality, and smooth transitions. I could really “buy into” these criteria, especially the last two: the contestants’ depth of understanding of their own fusion vocabulary; and dance technique. Technique here was described as having strong carriage, balance, ability to isolate (body control), and quality of movement and line.

It was good to see so much emphasis placed on basic coherence. Even more important than coherence was basic dance literacy: “Does routine contain at least one legible additional dance form to their style of Bellydance?” OK, so it’s not very grammatical. But I know what they meant, and it’s something I’ve been ranting about almost nonstop in my reviews.

So… if it isn’t strictly bellydance, then out of all the styles of dance in the world, why does this word in particular appear all over in the fine print - but not the big title? This is really a fusion contest for bellydancers. And hey, they’re actively wrestling with the whole labeling issue.

The above is only an extract about the event, but I snipped it as I was more interested in this aspect discussion rather than the review itself.

Readers are free to view the full article on Gilded Serpent Website.

Thoughts anyone? :think:

 

[Caroline_afifi]

So… does all this mean that Tribal Fusion is now a mature genre? Well… it’s getting there. Contests like this could encourage people to apply a more critical approach to their own dance, now that they have a safe space to be critiqued by their own chosen “village elders” as it were.

The only thing I could wish for is a deeper appreciation for, umm, Middle Eastern dance.

And I say this even though traditional Middle Eastern styles were performed by two people in the show, Nanna and Gibson. It’s almost like Middle Eastern dance and American cabaret bellydance are now relegated to the sidelines and fusion is suddenly the new big thing. I understand where they’re coming from about feeling restricted by a foreign culture that, for some people, is so far from who they are (particularly the LGBT community, that’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered for those outside of California). This particular event treats fusion as a sort of postmodernism
that approaches all source material as equivalent in value without a preservationist’s restraint, and yet it’s also simultaneously being defined as bellydance.

One thing about authenticity and this may not be the right place for this particular tangent. But why do we seek to preserve aspects of local culture, such as dance, food, and such? Because other elements of those cultures might not be so nice and we want to preserve what’s good and unifying, like participatory dances. We want to avoid things like xenophobia and racism that separate us and drive us apart.


Unity, not war… that’s really what being a “global” culture is all about, right? Unity, right? However, the World Trade Organization is also an expression of globalization and globalization is not always a good thing. Fusion (or fusion bellydance) is ”the folk dance of a globalized culture” - a globalized, homogenized YOUTH culture. The fusionistas are right about one thing though - too much tradition stifles innovation, and so we need to spice things up somehow. But I haven’t gotten to my point yet.

In our idealized vision of traditional cultures, preserved under glass or in amber like some exotic insect, this sense of coming together, this sense of humanity, is one of the reasons preservationists seek to keep the old dances alive. But to me personally, the essence of a traditional culture is its sense of human value, not the external trappings. Not aromatic desserts, not haunting melodies, not holy books, but plain old humanity. Simple human dignity is the real aim as far as I’m concerned. And one of the most important ways we affirm each other’s dignity is through hospitality

This is another part of the same article...

again, please red the full article if you want the full context.

 

[maria_harlequin]

I thought the article was confusing especially when she wrote:

"I’ll define “bellydance” as “uses a lot of undulations” to distinguish it from “Middle Eastern dance” which is itself an umbrella term that doesn’t actually convey much.".

Belly dancing = uses a lot of undulations. WHAT???

The judging criteria shows what they felt was most important and included congruence between costume, music and styling, audience connection, whether the fused elements made sense together.

From what I saw on the video, the "fused elements" didn't make much sense to me. Yes, it was good theater if that's your thing but I couldn't make a lot of sense out of macabre-style nurses dancing or balancing on cans of pork and beans.

 

[Kashmir]

I thought the article was confusing especially when she wrote:

Belly dancing = uses a lot of undulations.

WHAT???

Well, if that is their level of understanding of the dance - I don't think I'll bother reading it!

 

[Caroline_afifi]

Well I suppose it is a discussion we have had here many times about fusion but I thought this was interesting because it seems the author is exploring the complexities and has not managed to sort it.

I cant imagine why anyone would want to reduce this dance to a definition of 'undulations' :think:

I am all for creativity and expression... I suppose at the very least, I expect the creator to know what they are doing and why?... because if they dont have a clue, how are we the audience supoosed to make sense of it? the mind boggles.

 

[karena]

For me the article is packed full of stuff that I am lacking the headspace at the moment to engage with, but a few thoughts (for what they are worth).

The way I see the world is it being complex, which this article touches on. For me there isn't an 'authentic bellydance' to be accessed. People can define something as that, but it doesn't mean it is that. All meaning makes sense at a point in time, is fluid and is not finished. So something might mean something now, but other things will happen we need to make sense of, so they are either incorporated or rejected and this changes things. We can't avoid this or completely control this. This for me is not some value judgment of how things should be; it is how the world is structured and made sense of. So I'm not dissing authenticity, or supporting fusion, or saying anything goes, or should do. This is just the lens through which I view the world.

Now looking at the article about this contest it seems to engage at some level with these themes. It does strike me as odd that there being evidence of a coherent link with another dance style, as that is then suggesting a coherency in the other dance style. Trying to introduce coherency into incoherency :think:

Why the word bellydance is used, is a whole different discussion for me. Cos lots of people do it, people who don't normally dance find it accessible, it's constructed as being something exotic, anyone can do etc etc. I think she's bang on with things being a dance contest for BDers rather than BD.

It touches on some interesting stuff about authenticity, and preserving 'something under glass' that I see and find interesting. I think the zeitgeist is an obsession with 'authenticity' and the retrospective. Recently I went through a little village that had an 'authentic' red telephone box. Of course totally empty inside except for a sign from the national park authority explaining that this was maintained to preserve something or other. So not a phonebox, just a representation of a phonebox. To preserve the current view of the 'authentic' English countryside that never existed. Of course they don't preserve people living in muddy poverty, being kicked about by the landlord and dying...

(And the article mixes up postmodernism with relativism, but I'll silently grumble to myself about that one )

I am all for creativity and expression... I suppose at the very least, I expect the creator to know what they are doing and why?... because if they dont have a clue, how are we the audience supoosed to make sense of it? the mind boggles.

I found this quote interesting Caroline. My aunt is an artist, and art isn't really my thing. I'm more analytical. I once said to my aunt, 'but how do you know what the artist is trying to convey in the artwork'. And she replied 'why does that matter'. It was a bit of a lightbulb moment for me that I had always been thinking about translating the artwork, when actually it was for me to make meaning.

So in relation to your quote, does anyone really ever know what they are doing? Why does it matter? Why do you need to make sense? Why does it need to make sense? Does anything really make sense? (And back to the start about meaning)

(Just for the record in case this discussion goes it's usual route, I actually care a lot about not taking something from outside a culture and trashing it, making sure things are true to their source, not misrepresenting things and what some would describe as 'authenticity'. They're my value judgments)

 

[Caroline_afifi]

I found this quote interesting Caroline. My aunt is an artist, and art isn't really my thing. I'm more analytical. I once said to my aunt, 'but how do you know what the artist is trying to convey in the artwork'. And she replied 'why does that matter'. It was a bit of a lightbulb moment for me that I had always been thinking about translating the artwork, when actually it was for me to make meaning.

So in relation to your quote, does anyone really ever know what they are doing? Why does it matter? Why do you need to make sense? Why does it need to make sense? Does anything really make sense? (And back to the start about meaning)

An artist can usually can described as an egotist. They usually make a statement... some either get it or they dont. It is supposed to communicate something is it not? I dunno, perhaps that is where I have been going wrong?

Art to me has to include a skill or talent so modern art is B*llS$$T in my opinion unless it has this element. I saw a Dr Martin boot fenced off in a gallery when I was working in Holland. Now if the aim was to shock then it did and I never forgot how outraged I was at paying to see it. Art my arse.

Now depending on what the art is (as dont forget that in itself is as broad as it is long) there are parameters.
For me art is about making sense of chaos in someway..it is another tool of expression and how we figure out what the heck we are doing here. (that sounds very abstract bul bul for me! :lol.

I think it matters for me if an artist knows what they are doing or it has no meaning whatsoever.

That is how I judge things. Others are maybe more abstract and happy with that but I am always on the search for the meaning...

If there is non, then I wont accept it.. ever. There is no such thing as no meaning to me as everything has a meaning a true artist for me knows what it is and understands it.

(Just for the record in case this discussion goes it's usual route, I actually care a lot about not taking something from outside a culture and trashing it, making sure things are true to their source, not misrepresenting things and what some would describe as 'authenticity'. They're my value judgments)

[/QUOTE]

And you have to know what you are doing and when you are being self indulgent to understand that and preserve it.

PS Phew.. it's still early in the day for all this! :lol:

 

[maria_harlequin]

I found this quote interesting Caroline. My aunt is an artist, and art isn't really my thing. I'm more analytical. I once said to my aunt, 'but how do you know what the artist is trying to convey in the artwork'. And she replied 'why does that matter'. It was a bit of a lightbulb moment for me that I had always been thinking about translating the artwork, when actually it was for me to make meaning.

So in relation to your quote, does anyone really ever know what they are doing? Why does it matter? Why do you need to make sense? Why does it need to make sense? Does anything really make sense? (And back to the start about meaning)

As an artist myself, I think this is a stance that modernists take when it comes to "art" and a lot of it is abstract "art" ala Jackson Pollock, Picasso, the DADAs which is a totally different view of art that artists such as Boticelli, Waterhouse, Linda Bergkvist, or Stephanie Law have.

But for me, art that is anything that it can be, having no definition, no point, and no sense is not "art" for me. For me, art is something in which the artist chooses a medium in which he manipulates in order to highlight an idea or recreation of reality, communicating to the viewer. Of course, there a million ways to do this, whether it is sculpting marble or using watercolors, using a myriad of styles and techniques. But in the end, it must have meaning and communication for it to be art.

I take a similar stance when it comes to belly dancing. It has to have meaning and a point, and it must communicate to the audience using technique and styles and other media presented (costuming, music...). There are different styles and techniques and you can fuse different styles and techniques together...but you can't just lump everything together to create something without meaning and then it's okay.

I hope you don't take offense at my post - I don't mean to say that your aunt is wrong or a bad artist or anything, but this is my stance when it comes to art

 

[karena]

Re the art, I think, but am not an art expert, that what my aunt was expressing to me was a postmodern response to art. Now that's a whole can of worms in itself :lol:

I'm not going to open whole modern art can, but in direct response for me art can also be exposing the chaos, not just making sense of it.

What I am expressing is postmodern too. And that article touched on it too, which is why I brought it in. I don't make a habit of it in polite conversation

Re the meaning, it's not that the meaning isn't there. But I would argue that the meaning is not independent of us. We place the meaning on things. So the thing itself doesn't contain its own meaning. A rock can be either a nice ornamental thing you put in your garden, something to build a home with or something to throw at a soldier. The rock doesn't contain the meaning, we do. I too am on the search for that meaning, but am open to it being context dependent, changeable, incomplete etc.

PS For Maria, no, no offence. I don't think my aunt is that type of artist anyway. But she was expressing that view to help me understand a different perspective.

 

[Caroline_afifi]

Re the art, I think, but am not an art expert, that what my aunt was expressing to me was a postmodern response to art. Now that's a whole can of worms in itself :lol:

I'm not going to open whole modern art can, but in direct response for me art can also be exposing the chaos, not just making sense of it.

What I am expressing is postmodern too. And that article touched on it too, which is why I brought it in. I don't make a habit of it in polite conversation

Re the meaning, it's not that the meaning isn't there. But I would argue that the meaning is not independent of us. We place the meaning on things. So the thing itself doesn't contain its own meaning. A rock can be either a nice ornamental thing you put in your garden, something to build a home with or something to throw at a soldier. The rock doesn't contain the meaning, we do. I too am on the search for that meaning, but am open to it being context dependent, changeable, incomplete etc.

PS For Maria, no, no offence. I don't think my aunt is that type of artist anyway. But she was expressing that view to help me understand a different perspective.

OK, I am going to work on the rock throwing thing here...
Fiction of course.

1766 there was a women in a village who threw rocks at roses.

The rest of the village used to gather and watch.

One day, someone else liked the look of it and started to do the same in the same way. Between them they developed a great techniqe and were admired by many.

This went of for a few centuries and was preserved by the villages who fondly remebered old Rebecca the rock thrower from Ravenhead.

The craze had begun spread to other villages and as people emigrated they took Rebeccas rock throwing with them and developed it abroad.

People from other countries fascinated with the rock throwing began to take classes.. festivals popped up all over the place.

People from Rebeccas village of Ravenhead were in great demand and went to teach authntic rock throwing at roses all over the world.. but in some places found people throwing knives at statues.

The rock throwers were mad at the knife throwers and the natives of Ravenhead didnt have a clue what was going on.

They asked the rock throwers.. "what are you doing' and they replied 'we are throwing rocks as roses invented By Rebecca of Ravenhead' the native replied .. 'OK, it looks dodgy in places but you are getting there'

they asked the knife throwers the same and they replied..

'We dont know but the roots are in Rebeccas Rock throwing from Ravenhead'

UUH? said the natives...scratching their heads.

The end.

You are going to ask me what I ate for breakfast...:lol:

 

[karena]

OK, I am going to work on the rock throwing thing here...
Fiction of course.

1766 there was a women in a village who threw rocks at roses.

The rest of the village used to gather and watch.

One day, someone else liked the look of it and started to do the same in the same way. Between them they developed a great techniqe and were admired by many.

This went of for a few centuries and was preserved by the villages who fondly remebered old Rebecca the rock thrower from Ravenhead.

The craze had begun spread to other villages and as people emigrated they took Rebeccas rock throwing with them and developed it abroad.

People from other countries fascinated with the rock throwing began to take classes.. festivals popped up all over the place.

People from Rebeccas village of Ravenhead were in great demand and went to teach authntic rock throwing at roses all over the world.. but in some places found people throwing knives at statues.

The rock throwers were mad at the knife throwers and the natives of Ravenhead didnt have a clue what was going on.

They asked the rock throwers.. "what are you doing' and they replied 'we are throwing rocks as roses invented By Rebecca of Ravenhead' the native replied .. 'OK, it looks dodgy in places but you are getting there'

they asked the knife throwers the same and they replied..

'We dont know but the roots are in Rebeccas Rock throwing from Ravenhead'

UUH? said the natives...scratching their heads.

The end.

You are going to ask me what I ate for breakfast...:lol:

:lol:

Now this looks kinda familiar!

I personally would rather do Rebecca's rock throwing. But then I'm not a sword throwing kinda girl.

But, what would Rebecca think if she lived to see it?

Would she still see it as 'authentic'? Surely so many people would have had a hand in at by that point, that they would all have changed it a tiny bit. How would the native have a direct route into what Rebecca would think? It would have changed in every context.
What if the 'essence' of what Rebecca had done was throwing weapons at roses, it just so happens that the only weapon she had was a rock, so that's what she used. But the people throwing stones had started to throw pretty stones instead, losing the weapon essence, which had actually been rediscovered by throwing swords. But because people focused on the stone rather than the weapon they lost the essence of the activity.
Who is 'authentic'? Who makes the judgement?
Of course people at that time can make judgements based on what they know and understood of Rebecca, and what makes sense in their context

I'm not claiming to have the answers. Nor that none of this matters. Nor that there aren't any ways of assessing things. To me it really does matter, but it is very complex too. Questioning our ability to define 'authenticity' doesn't include an anything goes, bring the fusion on commitment.

It reminds me of something we've touched on before of who is doing the preserving, why, and the orientalism/colonialsm that is within this.

 

[LynetteSerpent]

comment box problem?

Over half of the the GS article plus the video was pasted into these pages.
Are you having trouble with the new comment box on the same page where this article lives? The link to the original article was also not listed

So, If You Cut up a Rose, is it still a Flower? | Belly Dance News & Events

I know that firefox browsers users are still having some issues with the comments section that we are working on. The "spam bot challenge question" is confusing some folks too. 'Is ice hot or cold?" The only answer this box will accept is "cold"

Your valuable insights should be there with the article for further discussion and enlightenment of the whole community and the gerneral public.
Thank you,
Lynette

 

[Caroline_afifi]

Over half of the the GS article plus the video was pasted into these pages.
Are you having trouble with the new comment box on the same page where this article lives? The link to the original article was also not listed

So, If You Cut up a Rose, is it still a Flower? | Belly Dance News & Events

I know that firefox browsers users are still having some issues with the comments section that we are working on. The "spam bot challenge question" is confusing some folks too. 'Is ice hot or cold?" The only answer this box will accept is "cold"

Your valuable insights should be there with the article for further discussion and enlightenment of the whole community and the gerneral public.
Thank you,
Lynette

Sorry Lynette,

I did not put the link, but I did let people know it was not the full article and where to find it.

A comment box at the end of an article is interesting but a discussion is better and can be explored in more depth.

Either way, it postively promotes Gilded Serpent as a site to visit.

I shall take more care next time to add the link etc.

 

[Caroline_afifi]

:lol:

Now this looks kinda familiar!

:lol:

I personally would rather do Rebecca's rock throwing. But then I'm not a sword throwing kinda girl.

I may master the rock throwing and then try chucking a few knives.

But, what would Rebecca think if she lived to see it?

It is impossible to say really. We would have to ask those in the village what they think.

Me personally, I do like good fusion and sprinkled lightly in a show is great.

I enjoy experimental work but prefer this do be done using Middle Eastern themes. That does not mean have not enjoyed the odd Zombie dance.

It is the 'out of controlness' that worries me.. is it my imagination or is fusion getting bigger than Middle Eastern dance?

Would she still see it as 'authentic'?

I very much doubt... if I am likening this to fusion and ME people then the answer is no.

Surely so many people would have had a hand in at by that point

Yes but whose hand.. the people from the Ravenhead village? or the Island ofF China who people prefer to throw knives at Statues and still called it throwing rocks at Roses from Ravenhead?

that they would all have changed it a tiny bit. How would the native have a direct route into what Rebecca would think? It would have changed in every context.

Yes but the culture of the village would be intergral to the tradition as this is what Rebecca would have been drawing on.

What if the 'essence' of what Rebecca had done was throwing weapons at roses, it just so happens that the only weapon she had was a rock, so that's what she used.

What is avaible makes it what it is and unique to that place. If people want to paint the stones then that is OK.. these things do happen but to change the weapon is to change the whole nature of the thing.

A welly thrwoing competition is exactly that and if you dont throw a training shoe instead then you are not in the Welly throwing competition.

But the people throwing stones had started to throw pretty stones instead, losing the weapon essence, which had actually been rediscovered by throwing swords. But because people focused on the stone rather than the weapon they lost the essence of the activity.
Who is 'authentic'? Who makes the judgement?

The people of Ravenhead who have preserved and practiced the art for generations.

Of course people at that time can make judgements based on what they know and understood of Rebecca, and what makes sense in their context

I'm not claiming to have the answers. Nor that none of this matters. Nor that there aren't any ways of assessing things. To me it really does matter, but it is very complex too. Questioning our ability to define 'authenticity' doesn't include an anything goes, bring the fusion on commitment.

It

reminds me of something we've touched on before of who is doing the preserving, why, and the orientalism/colonialsm that is within this.[/QUOTE

]

I am trying to think of another art or tradition where this has happend.

Can anyone think of one?

I sometimes get the feeling that Middle Eastern dance has become something that has no boudaries or recognised roots in the mind of many.
It is like a free for all.

To be able to take something and change it so much it no longer resembles what it was and where it come AND still use it's name is totally and utterly mind boggling in every sense.

If you study art in Uni then every form has boudaries and definitions.

It has to be that way to be marked, assessed and judged.
Fine art, post modernism, canvas, stencil, bla bla bla..

Defining 'authntic' maybe one thing, but I think more important than that we all need to define the point something stops being what it is and becomes something else.

 

[karena]

It is impossible to say really. We would have to ask those in the village what they think.

Why would they know what Rebecca thinks? So if I want to know what you think, can I ask anyone in Liverpool, or would I need to ask someone of similar parentage to you, or someone who is also a wife and mother, or any other way of categorising?

Me personally, I do like good fusion and sprinkled lightly in a show is great.

I enjoy experimental work but prefer this do be done using Middle Eastern themes. That does not mean have not enjoyed the odd Zombie dance.

It is the 'out of controlness' that worries me.. is it my imagination or is fusion getting bigger than Middle Eastern dance?

I want to reiterate that I agree.

What I am wanting to do here is question and understand the basis things are said on, rather than extol a certain view. For me the sitting in camps "it is", "it isn't" way of discussing things leads nowhere, and doesn't actually take us anywhere in understanding. (Not that this is happening, but maybe I'm crazy, but I'm just building my defences in advance...)

Yes but whose hand.. the people from the Ravenhead village? or the Island ofF China who people prefer to throw knives at Statues and still called it throwing rocks at Roses from Ravenhead?

OK football comes from the UK. Am I best placed to preserve or understand it? Can I understand original intentions?

Yes but the culture of the village would be intergral to the tradition as this is what Rebecca would have been drawing on.

What if Rebecca's aim was to challenge and reject that culture?

What is avaible makes it what it is and unique to that place. If people want to paint the stones then that is OK.. these things do happen but to change the weapon is to change the whole nature of the thing.

A welly thrwoing competition is exactly that and if you dont throw a training shoe instead then you are not in the Welly throwing competition.

Ok so what if the intention of Rebecca was weapon throwing not stone throwing? What if the intention of welly throwing was footwear throwing not welly throwing?
One group of people change the stone throwing to throwing pretty stones, one group change it to throwing swords. Haven't the former lost the plot and the latter are actually true to Rebecca?
One group of people create some really lovely elaborate wellies to throw, which cannot be worn, and one group throw their trainers. Again, haven't the former lost the plot and the latter are actually true to the essence of the activity?

For me we can never know, and it is not there to be known. Rebecca or the welly throwers in all likelihood didn't set out thinking "right the essence of what I am doing is...", they just did it. It then developed in a particular way, because people made particular decisions along the way, that made sense at the time, and perhaps what the more powerful people wanted along the way cos they had a bigger say. And in the course of this, what everyone did made sense, as it gradually evolved that way, so that is seemed there was no other way.

So, for me trying to find the root or the truth is impossible. But this doesn't mean there is nothing, as things can be understood in their context, but for me knowing the limits of what can be understood aids that understanding.

I am trying to think of another art or tradition where this has happend.

Can anyone think of one?

Western art
Western dance

Compare a Constable to a Banksy
Compare morris Dancing to ballroom

Of course it all depends where you draw the boundaries and how you are defining the thing. People still paint like Constable and do Morris dancing, but people also do new stuff.
Did you know Torvill and Dean were controversial in their time to challenging boundaries, and changing the face of ice dance.

I sometimes get the feeling that Middle Eastern dance has become something that has no boudaries or recognised roots in the mind of many.
It is like a free for all.

Me too. And I worry about it in that whole post colonial, cultural imperialist context too. I do also worry though about the other extreme too, of wanting 'native' 'other' 'eastern' 'traditional' things to be 'preserved'. Going back to the phonebox, what if the people in the 'pretty English village' don't want to be 'preserved' for tourists?

To be able to take something and change it so much it no longer resembles what it was and where it come AND still use it's name is totally and utterly mind boggling in every sense.

I agree. The labelling of things is very problematic.

If you study art in Uni then every form has boudaries and definitions.

It has to be that way to be marked, assessed and judged.
Fine art, post modernism, canvas, stencil, bla bla bla..

It depends on the approach of the uni, but I'm not so sure things do.

Sure things are marked, but it depends what they are marking. You always get the summer stories of the krazy art students who do something krazy for their final year project. That is to do with breaking boundaries. I do have a friend in that field, and we were talking the other day about what at in uni should and shouldn't be about in this context.

Defining 'authntic' maybe one thing, but I think more important than that we all need to define the point something stops being what it is and becomes something else.

I agree, I just think there is more than one way to skin a cat...

(Of course one of the big criticisms of the kind of stuff I spout, is that it never has the answers. :lol: But, for me the solution isn't trying to find answers for answers sake...)

 

[Caroline_afifi]

Why would they know what Rebecca thinks? So if I want to know what you think, can I ask anyone in Liverpool, or would I need to ask someone of similar parentage to you, or someone who is also a wife and mother, or any other way of categorising?

I mean it is impossible to know what Rebecca thinks we would have to ask those in the village who practice the tradition what they think.. now as opposed to what they thought she thinks.. are you still following? :lol:

I want to reiterate that I agree.

I know you do..

What I am wanting to do here is question and understand the basis things are said on, rather than extol a certain view. For me the sitting in camps "it is", "it isn't" way of discussing things leads nowhere, and doesn't actually take us anywhere in understanding. (Not that this is happening, but maybe I'm crazy, but I'm just building my defences in advance...)

I know where you are coming from... or at least i think I do. I am doing the same really by questioning and proping a postion or theory.

OK football comes from the UK. Am I best placed to preserve or understand it? Can I understand original intentions?

Yes, if you are a footballer... now if you are a 'footballer' carrying the ball around the field in the States then NO! :lol: if you play by the rules of footballa nd live in Spain or germany then YES!!

What if Rebecca's aim was to challenge and reject that culture?

Then that in itself becomes the culture and tradition.

Ok so what if the intention of Rebecca was weapon throwing not stone throwing? What if the intention of welly throwing was footwear throwing not welly throwing?

then you have to ask why it become what it become.

One group of people change the stone throwing to throwing pretty stones, one group change it to throwing swords. Haven't the former lost the plot and the latter are actually true to Rebecca?

That would depend on who the developer was, what their intension was and why. Do they throw swords because they are bored with stones, they cant throw stones or cant be bothered to learn?

One group of people create some really lovely elaborate wellies to throw, which cannot be worn, and one group throw their trainers. Again, haven't the former lost the plot and the latter are actually true to the essence of the activity?

At least the unwearable welly is still recognised as a welly, even with flowers on.

The pink wellies with flowers on worn for festivals in the Uk are still wellies even though your average farmer would not wear one.

They might choose to wear pink flowered wellies over a pair of trainer though if push come to shove.

For me we can never know, and it is not there to be known.

no, but the cue can still be taken from the culure and if the culture does not recognise it as oart of their culture then you can use this as a guide that all may noit be what you thought it was.

Rebecca or the welly throwers in all likelihood didn't set out thinking "right the essence of what I am doing is...", they just did it.

Yes.

It then developed in a particular way, because people made particular decisions along the way, that made sense at the time, and perhaps what the more powerful people wanted along the way cos they had a bigger say. And in the course of this, what everyone did made sense, as it gradually evolved that way, so that is seemed there was no other way.

Yes.

So, for me trying to find the root or the truth is impossible. But this doesn't mean there is nothing, as things can be understood in their context, but for me knowing the limits of what can be understood aids that understanding

.

Knowing and understanding the limits of the past s hard but you can examine a welly and still know it has different characteristics from a welly and a welly that looks like a trainer is what exactly? that is the whole point.

It is like those trainers with high heels...

Western art
Western dance

Compare a Constable to a Banksy
Compare morris Dancing to ballroom

It is not so much about comparison but identity... how do you tell Morris dancing from ballroom? :think:

Of course it all depends where you draw the boundaries and how you are defining the thing. People still paint like Constable and do Morris dancing, but people also do new stuff.

Yes but would they dare call it a constable?

Did you know Torvill and Dean were controversial in their time to challenging boundaries, and changing the face of ice dance.

No but it is part of their culture so no problemo. If they tried to change the face of Russian Cossack dancing I would wonder who the hell they think they are?

Me too. And I worry about it in that whole post colonial, cultural imperialist context too. I do also worry though about the other extreme too, of wanting 'native' 'other' 'eastern' 'traditional' things to be 'preserved'. Going back to the phonebox, what if the people in the 'pretty English village' don't want to be 'preserved' for tourists?

I agree.. and in my experienc, only fantasy is preserved for tourists.

I agree. The labelling of things is very problematic.

Yup.

It depends on the approach of the uni, but I'm not so sure things do.

So on what basis can anyone do a VIVA for a PHD?

Sure things are marked, but it depends what they are marking. You always get the summer stories of the krazy art students who do something krazy for their final year project. That is to do with breaking boundaries. I do have a friend in that field, and we were talking the other day about what at in uni should and shouldn't be about in this context.

someone somewhere decides something based on something believe me.

I agree, I just think there is more than one way to skin a cat...

There is, but you need to know your skinning a cat and not a rat! :lol:

(Of course one of the big criticisms of the kind of stuff I spout, is that it never has the answers. :lol: But, for me the solution isn't trying to find answers for answers sake...)

well the search is interesting!

 

[Sita]

The above is only an extract about the event, but I snipped it as I was more interested in this aspect discussion rather than the review itself.

Readers are free to view the full article on Gilded Serpent Website.

Thoughts anyone? :think:

I know that you gave the title 'A rose by any other name' and hers follows the same line of thought 'So, If You Cut up a Rose, is it still a Flower?'. Rather than go into detail I just want to sum up my thoughts in genral on this topic by referring to those titles. Literature is after all what I'm studying, my specialism so it's easier for me to express myself in this way; these comments may come across as garbage but it's garbage I have a right to post - simply ignore it, it has no greater authority than anything else.

Simply put I think the argument as expressed in the title(s) is flawed.
If you cut up a rose it remains a flower, or specifically a fragment of a flower but still a flower. This however does not address the issue of fusion dance.
If you cut up a rose and prehaps used a petal to stick to a valentines day card is that still a flower or a valentines card with a fragment of a now dead flower?
they are not just cutting up the rose they are adding bits to it, manipulating its very nature making it into a hybrid form.

The quote of shakespeare's is actually very useful here: his argument is that if you change the name but not the nature of a 'thing' - is it still not the same 'thing'? well of course it's the same, the nature of the 'thing' defines it not the name. (replace 'thing' with rose or dance your choice)

Here however we are changing the nature of a 'thing' but using the same name. By Shakespeare's implied definition the 'thing' is no longer what it was, it has changed and become something else entirely.

This is not to say I dislike fusion or Tribal simply that I think they are not belly dance. Also the issue of Orientalism and Colonialism that Karena brought up is of importance. By taking the dance away from it culture, adjusting it and claiming it as 'ours' not a form of cultural Imperialism/Colonialism ?
It appears to mirror it to much for comfort IMO.

Sita

 

[Sita]

In regards to the article

To quote a section of the article:

And I say this even though traditional Middle Eastern styles were performed by two people in the show, Nanna and Gibson. It’s almost like Middle Eastern dance and American cabaret bellydance are now relegated to the sidelines and fusion is suddenly the new big thing. I understand where they’re coming from about feeling restricted by a foreign culture that, for some people, is so far from who they are (particularly the LGBT community, that’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered for those outside of California).

I find this rather troubling and I'm not sure what this is implying or suggesting. Homosexuality has not been traditionally accepted in Western culture does that mean that a LGBT community would have an issue with morris dancing or bell ringing ?
Are LGBT not also present in the M.E? Indeed sex change operations are actually legal in Iran brought about via the Islamic Revolution:

Sex changes have been legal in Iran since Ayatollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution, passed a fatwa - a religious edict - authorising them for "diagnosed transsexuals" 25 years ago.T oday, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand.The government even provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance and a sex change is recognised on your birth certificate.

"Islam has a cure for people suffering from this problem. If they want to change their gender, the path is open," says Hojatol Islam Muhammad Mehdi Kariminia, the religious cleric responsible for gender reassignment.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iran's 'diagnosed transsexuals'
Although I accept homosexuality is illegal though to suggest unpractised well...
and how does respecting the cultural origins of a dance effect on ones own sexual idenity?
I am really struggling with this. I accept I am not myself of the LGBT community so I have a limited understanding on this but I would welcome anything to further my understanding of this comment and it's implications...
Indeed I would be very much grateful to anyone who explains that I have misread this comment. Rather than seeking unity it appears to be devisive ?

Sita

 

[teela]

To me, Middle Eastern Dance is based upon a culture that moved with the folks who left the area and came to the US or the UK or where ever. They brought their culture with them to the new land so they'd have something familiar. Everyone does it. Unfortunately, any form of cultural dance is taken apart, other things added and something different emerges, it is loosing the connection it has with home and is no longer the same. When this reaches a point it is no longer recognizable due to form, music and feeling, it is something new and cannot be classified as the original. This is what I feel fusion and similar forms are. I don't mind watching someone do a ninja thing if I know its fusion. If I'm expecting something traditional and the person comes out doing the ninja thing, I feel as though I've been mislead. The reality is that for something to have the essence, we cannot remove the cultural history and throw it away. Just my thoughts.

 

[karena]

I mean it is impossible to know what Rebecca thinks we would have to ask those in the village who practice the tradition what they think.. now as opposed to what they thought she thinks.. are you still following?

and

Then that in itself becomes the culture and tradition.

So if we ask the people in the village they will give their view based on their understanding of the culture and tradition. But little did they know, Rebecca was actually doing it to challenge this very same culture and tradition. They just misunderstood. So they are now perpetuating a version very different from that Rebecca intended.

For me there isn't culture and tradition, there are cultures and traditions, which make sense to different people in different ways. That is not to say it is all some mish mash and there are no common ways of making sense of the world. There are lots. And my cultures and traditions are probably more like yours, than say some in Ghana. But there are points where you and I will see things very differently cos we have different experiences of said cultures. And alot of these differences and how we got to those differences will be hidden and not even thought about.

So on what basis can anyone do a VIVA for a PHD?

You defend your thesis to experts in your field. But it is for you to convince them of your argument not for them to decide what your argument should be, or how it should be framed, or what theoretical approach you take, or how you did your research. That is for you to justify and defend. So you can break all the barriers if you can defend that. (Of course, in reality it is dominated by the approach adopted by the natural sciences, which means it tends to take place within that structure, and the student is more likely to toe the line for an easier life, and give in to the dominant way of doing stuff . In terms of approaching the viva that is. The research can break barriers, but it's easier not to try and break those barriers in the viva itself)

someone somewhere decides something based on something believe me.

But the criteria might be about breaking barriers...

these comments may come across as garbage but it's garbage I have a right to post - simply ignore it, it has no greater authority than anything else.

And very welcome and at home in this thread. :lol:Glad you've joined us.

The quote of shakespeare's is actually very useful here: his argument is that if you change the name but not the nature of a 'thing' - is it still not the same 'thing'? well of course it's the same, the nature of the 'thing' defines it not the name. (replace 'thing' with rose or dance your choice)

Here however we are changing the nature of a 'thing' but using the same name. By Shakespeare's implied definition the 'thing' is no longer what it was, it has changed and become something else entirely.

Is it possible to know the 'thing' and access the 'thing' without language? I'd say the 'thing' only has meaning in relation to the way we use language. That's not to say the 'thing' doesn't exist, or that I can call it what I like, or that it doesn't matter what I call the 'thing' and I can do what I like with it. But I suppose I'm trying to get at the inherent unknowability of the 'thing' without accessing it through language. So I'm trying to get at the difficulty of the 'thing' rather than making a value-judgment on what we should or shouldn't do with the 'thing'.

Also the issue of Orientalism and Colonialism that Karena brought up is of importance. By taking the dance away from it culture, adjusting it and claiming it as 'ours' not a form of cultural Imperialism/Colonialism ?

For me the flip side is scary too as it's not so understood or recognised, but can be limiting. I suppose I mean you take it out of the culture and preserve it 'for them'. We can see the countryside and say 'it's like this, I know because I saw it in a Romantic painting, we must preserve it like this', so we can go and stay in our second homes and play in it at the weekends. The red telephone box can be preserved, and we can parade round imaging we are in some Wordsworth poem. Meanwhile, the essence of the village is missing as the community is dead, no-one can afford to live there, there's poverty behind those doors. Still as long as we have the red phone box...
It appears to mirror it to much for comfort IMO.