Thread: Touchy? Art vs. Entertainment

Devil's Advocate Question: Is there a difference between belly dance as art & belly dance as entertainment? Likewise, is there a difference between belly dancer as artist & belly dancer as entertainer?
This question is motivated by the discussions on the following threads:
http://www.bhuz.com/forum/business-b...ting-gigs.html
http://www.bhuz.com/forum/business-b...es-aspire.html


IMO: The answer is YES. The artist & the art form have freedom of expression while the entertainer is bound by convention: As an artist I can have hairy arm pits, short hair, and fuse tap dancing with belly dance while wearing a gorrilla suit. As an entertainer it is expected I will meet the conventions that apply to looks, costuming, and styles. I believe this applies across genres of movement: you expect a flamenco dancer to look like a flamenco dancer, you expect a mime to be quiet, you expect a clown to arrive in a clown suit with big shoes and a red nose & be funny and creepy all at the same time...particularly when you're hiring them to be at your party. When you go to the experimental artists cooperative exhibit you expect to see things that break the conventional mold.
Thoughts?

I would say that the venue sets the requirement for what role you are playing as a dancer. We wear many different hats;
- in a restaurant we are entertainment, even ambiance. If you can include some artistry - great, if not, entertaining is your main job.. oh and being pretty while prancing around letting everyone in the restaurant have an "exotic" experience

- at a party we are entertainment, even suppose to get people into party mode. If you can include some artistry, great, if not, your job is to get the spirits up and get the party started.

- on stage we are artists displaying artistry and command of the dance style. Entertaining is secondary, however, still a part of the package.

- on DVDs we are artists and representatives of the dance style and ourselves as dancers. It's important to portray the artistry of the dance but also keep in mind that it has to translate on video... not everyone has a 100" plasma flat screen that they can digitally zoom on to see your movements.

- at "sign up and dance" bellydance festivals we are there to represent what we do and display how well we command the dance - as well as show our fellow dancers how much we enjoy what we do.

- as a guest performer/instructor/featured dancer at dance events we are there to bring quality, artistry, represent the dance style, show technical ability, show our command of the stage and the audience and to entertain.

- as dancers at other types of festivals our job is to represent the dance, entertain people and make sure everyone has an enjoyable experience with it.

I do think that as a hired talent our responsibility is to answer our audience and employer's expectations (within reasonable measures) and represent our artform according to the parameters above.

My 2 paisas...

Originally Posted by nayastrance

Devil's Advocate Question: Is there a difference between belly dance as art & belly dance as entertainment? Likewise, is there a difference between belly dancer as artist & belly dancer as entertainer?
This question is motivated by the discussions on the following threads:
http://www.bhuz.com/forum/business-b...ting-gigs.html
http://www.bhuz.com/forum/business-b...es-aspire.html


IMO: The answer is YES. The artist & the art form have freedom of expression while the entertainer is bound by convention: As an artist I can have hairy arm pits, short hair, and fuse tap dancing with belly dance while wearing a gorrilla suit. As an entertainer it is expected I will meet the conventions that apply to looks, costuming, and styles. I believe this applies across genres of movement: you expect a flamenco dancer to look like a flamenco dancer, you expect a mime to be quiet, you expect a clown to arrive in a clown suit with big shoes and a red nose & be funny and creepy all at the same time...particularly when you're hiring them to be at your party. When you go to the experimental artists cooperative exhibit you expect to see things that break the conventional mold.
Thoughts?

Yes, you can have "hairy arm pits, short hair, and fuse tap dancing with belly dance while wearing a gorilla suit" as an artist, but just having/doing those things doesn't MAKE you an artist

Similarly I don't believe that looking the part determines where you stand on the art/entertainment divide.

~~Kimahri

Well, the entertainment aspect is what we get paid for, so I agree we must conform a bit more. The opportunity to express artistry is the inspiration for the dancer.

The most successful dancers, I think, are able to merge the two together.

Had to edit to add: I'm defining success in terms of the dancer being happy with where he/she is. The artist, if she never gets paid, may have fewer outlets for her creativity and get either stifled or burned out. The dancer who dances for money only loses the inspiration and suffers as a performer...

I think you can be both art and entertainment. I consider many people both entertaining and artistic and being a performer, I think it's important to be both.

No matter where you go in your art, I think you're always bound by certain rules, even in so-called accepting, experimental realms. Sometimes, I feel like they try to out weird each other, and it goes so far away from art.

i think being both art and entertainment is part of "the essence" of bellydance.

tonight i performed at a wedding with a choreo that was aimed at a bellydance show audience with a lot of veil stuff, references to folklore, complicated rhytms ect, not all of it a crowd pleaser; they ooohed and aaahed, then a drumsolo by one of my students who got the bride up to dance with her, they went "yeaaay", then a pop song with three dancers, and then we got people up and i played the clown and we did the tarkan kiss kiss dance along routine thing i do for party gigs when the main aim is to get everrrry body up to dance or clap;

they admired the artistry and my veil work in the first piece, they had a blast with everything else.

we do both, always, i think.
what bellydance routines win competions, the artistry that entertains us. and what does the gp like; a good dose of mystery, tricks, entertainment, accessibilty and wonder.

This is one of the issues that I spend at least a part of every day thinking about...so much does it irk me I also feel about it strongly, and so struggle to express what I think articulately - but I've given it a shot below. Forgive the rambling (especially later in the post).

I've performed in restaurants and I've also made efforts to connect with the 'artistic' dance community in my local area. And my conclusion is that the division between art and entertainment is a false one. I think that Entertainment is just one spoke in the wheel of Art.

At a very broad brushstroke level what we seem to be saying is that ordinary people who go out for a meal are only interested in (or only deserve?) entertainment, whereas the educated elite who go to shows at theatres, etc are the ones who are really interested (or deserve?) Art. And I know this is a very crude argument, but on my bleakest days this is how I feel about it all.

Different contexts allow me to present myself as a dancer and an artist in different ways. Yes, in a restaurant you have to conform to what the 'employer' expects of you, especially in terms of appearance and certainly facilitating the audience having a good time. But does it mean that artistry is abandoned totally? I don't think so. I think that in a restaurant you get to produce what is to some extent a site-specific performance. You adapt your movements, your expression of the music to the shape of the space, the ambience at that particular time, the audience, etc. Having that framework to be an artist within is very challenging, as we often associate being an 'artist' with being freed of, or freeing oneself from, frameworks (e.g., the expectation of what a belly-dancer does/looks like, etc). I prefer instead to see this framework as something like a rhyme scheme or a particular poetic structure like a sonnet - it limits what I can do, but it doesn't limit my artistry.

My experience of presenting bellydance/raqs sharqi in the context of the local broader dance community (UK, North-west) has been one of elitism and snobbery. Quite often unless you have a 'track' record as a choreographer/performer you won't get anywhere with getting funding...and a track record obviously doesn't mean working in restaurants. Also, when I have had the opportunity to create and present work (unpaid, so without that 'the employer expects' side of things) at local dance events (in theatres) I have had a less-than-enthusiastic reception, mainly I suspect because people don't consider bellydance to be a legitimate 'art' dance: bit of a vicious circle there, eh? (And also possibly because I danced craply...,r:;) These have been opportunities to move outside the usual music and costuming that people might expect from bellydancers (perhaps that's where I've been going wrong!)
(cont'd in next post)

Some haflas seem to offer intermediate ground - you can try and be a bit experimental in a (largely) sympathetic atmosphere, but you're not really moving towards a wider dance audience (which is often what I think we're aiming for when we present as 'art').

The people who tend to be most influential in determining what is usually thought of as 'art' are the kind of people who attend broader dance events, and would write off a bellydancer in a restaurant as 'just entertainment'. How do we convince them? Is it worth convincing them, or do we just carry on doing what we do?

And don't even get me started on the role I think that latent Orientalism plays in some of these attitudes (the 'bellydance is just entertainment' attitudes), because that would be a whole nother post of inarticulate frustration

I'm going to have to stop now, cos we have visitors, but will probably do some more rambling later downthread.

I think there is a certain art to entertaining, as there is an art to anything really.

Originally Posted by sumayasaahir

I think there is a certain art to entertaining, as there is an art to anything really.

Yes I agree-not everybody is or can be entertaining-someone who can present their art well for the appropriate audience and entertain them i.e do the job they are paid for, deserve recognition for that too.

Originally Posted by artemisia_danst

i think being both art and entertainment is part of "the essence" of bellydance.

I got this question in Swedens national radio two weeks ago and said the same thing as Artemisia!

To me,bellydance(oriental dance,folkloric and the whole package)
is something that has given me:
New friends,wonderful people that I´ve never got to meet otherwise
Joyful training
Interesting new places to travel to
Cosy sewing evenings(alone or in company)
An endless source of new music to love
Work!To finance my addiction of course.....g.:

I enjoy performing as an "ethnic entertainer"more than being on a theatre stage.
When other dancers comes to look,I get very nervous actually

Heads up, guys: we're in a post-modern condition. We no longer distinguish between "high" art and popular culture. It's ALL GOOD!

I think BD often "fails" to be "art" because we don't theorise it, unless we are people in EEMED. Most of the time in BD we seek to make something beautiful and uplifting, not something that makes our audiences uncomfortable. BD to me is largely about *fun*, not challenge. Sure, it can be technically challenging for you and me, and sure, we can create intellectual challenges for ourselves and create internal themes for our dance, but for the audience it's largely about "oh look a bDer how nice I feel good."

A lot of other artists have to fight to be relevant, which is why they have to produce a lot of theoretical justification for what they do. "Proper" art goes entirely over my head these days because it's really unpopulist, even as it draws on populist material and concerns. I really do think of BD (outside the ME) as not so much an "art" as a culture - like Artemisia and Emma-Bessa said, it's so much more than just one thing. Dancing itself is only part of it.

"not something that makes our audiences uncomfortable" => word!

I really dont like the distinction between "at a party/restaurant" we do entertainment and at a bellydance show we do art. hm, i dont like the hierarchy insinuated in that..

i had a student that left that got really pissed off at the comunity events we did. she called it pearls for the pigs (do you have that expression in english). meaning people did not "apreciate" what we did, and that they would have enjoyed us just the same if we could not dance, just pretty girls in ****ty costumes so why were we bothering.

i didnt agree, i hope some people in the audience DID appreciate what we did, that we showed them some beauty and yes FUN. that they saw a bellydancer and would remember how beautifull it was, that their introduction to bellydance was nicer than a girl in a skimpy costume with three moves...

of course, what i do at a GP gig is not exactly the same as in a BD show. (ha, i dont stand on a chair in most bd shows for one). but in a way, i see it more as a different mix of art and entertainment... mostly on the entertainment sight, in both cases. and yes "entertainment" well done, is a form of art too.

i like the idea of it being a "culture".

i dont know who said it one here a while ago, zumarrad maybe, but we need to get it in our heads that BD is popular culture, not "high brow". a lot of the so called art in BD shows seems to me a desperate attempt to be high brow anyway. when my boyfriend or non BD friends see something like that, usually they dont like it either, cause they dont get it, it doesnt move them, and they dont go along to a BD show to be made to feel uncomfortable. they want to be entertained, by beauty.... while at a party they want to be entertained, by watching something pretty, by being pulled up to dance or watching the bride dancing, by laughing, and the occasional "how does she do that".

i also just realised: i usually end up using the routines i make for "a bellydance show", in my GP gigs as well... with just as much applaus ;-)

Artemisia (who loves a good show..)

When I think about it, popular entertainers are called artists. Britney Spears et al are "recording artists" and they put on a show, and they are entertaining. I would say Cassandra Shore is a consummate artist, and she's *bloody* entertaining, and part of her artistry is her ability to work a room. It's a different kind of art though. That's something I found when I was reading academic material pertaining to dance, most of it didn't really *apply* to what we do.

I think oriental dance artists are more like amazing singers who interpret songs written or partially written by other people. Our body and how we use it is unique, and we make the songs our own. One dancer might be Cher and another Shakira and another Om Khalsoum. All great recording artists, all very different.

Zumarrad, I agree it is important to put this distinction on the word "artist." Belly dancers are artists in the terms of interpreters, entertainers, purveyors of a learned skill.

I've studied the question "What is (fine) Art?" during and since my graduation with a bachelors of fine art degree in painting. I haven't done much consideration of performance art, as of yet, but I can say (please don't flame, this is coming from a well educated stand point) that belly dance, whether on stage or at a restaurant, is typically not Art. I would consider the PURE events as performance art, but not the typical restaurant appearance, hafla, or theater show (including BDSS). My reason for this is that these events are based on displaying a learned skill, in the way the learned skill was intended to be showcased.

For performance art pieces to research, and find what I mean by it, google "Cut Piece" by Yoko Ono, and the "Happenings" by Allan Kaprow.

Please no flames, I just wanted to offer a fine art point of view, if you don't want the fine art point of view, the offer another type of "art" you believe this falls under.

Originally Posted by whitneync

Zumarrad, I agree it is important to put this distinction on the word "artist." Belly dancers are artists in the terms of interpreters, entertainers, purveyors of a learned skill.

I've studied the question "What is (fine) Art?" during and since my graduation with a bachelors of fine art degree in painting. I haven't done much consideration of performance art, as of yet, but I can say (please don't flame, this is coming from a well educated stand point) that belly dance, whether on stage or at a restaurant, is typically not Art. I would consider the PURE events as performance art, but not the typical restaurant appearance, hafla, or theater show (including BDSS). My reason for this is that these events are based on displaying a learned skill, in the way the learned skill was intended to be showcased.

For performance art pieces to research, and find what I mean by it, google "Cut Piece" by Yoko Ono, and the "Happenings" by Allan Kaprow.

Please no flames, I just wanted to offer a fine art point of view, if you don't want the fine art point of view, the offer another type of "art" you believe this falls under.

Not flaming you at all, but this ties right into a question that was just forming in my mind.

By the definition that Art needs to somehow challenge people, break new ground, not just display a learned skill in the way that skill was intended --

is traditional ballet art?
The creation of a magnificent painting or photograph in an already-developed style?
Is an opera performance art?

I think I need more vocabulary before I can even address the question posed in this thread. Because to me, a lushly gorgeous ballet or opera or painting - or Oriental piece - can move me emotionally and is 'art' as well as entertainment.

I do understand the difference between that and, say, the 'Piss Christ' which is meant to challenge rather than please. But I don't have a vocabulary for that difference.

There are times I see bellydance in the 'pleasing artistry' category and times as a dancer I'm mostly posing for pics and making folks laugh and not really trying to move anyone emotionally, and I feel more like an entertainer, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Interesting points of view here. I'm reminded of the zen koan "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Does it matter who's watching you, or if anyone is watching at all? Does that distinguish what you call youself or how you view your belly dance practice? If belly dance is both art & entertainment, does your audience matter?


If, as Zumarrad says, there's no distinguishing between high art and low art then why do so many of us (myself included) blanche and then turn hot as hell at the suggestion we be lumped with strippers? Isn't exotic dancing a form of entertainment. Entertainment which by the majority of the arguments formed here, is just as worthy as "art"? That art is somehow different, or lower? Believe me I get why we work so hard to break that misconception, I'm not advocating a position, I'm stirring the pot--just to be clear.

I'm going to argue that a lot of strippers aren't artists. To me, art is something that takes time to develop and is thoughtful, communicates something. An artist does whatever s/he does for the sheer love of it and is constantly striving to improve the work.

I'm not convinced that applies to most strippers, but I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by nayastrance

Interesting points of view here. I'm reminded of the zen koan "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Does it matter who's watching you, or if anyone is watching at all? Does that distinguish what you call youself or how you view your belly dance practice? If belly dance is both art & entertainment, does your audience matter?


If, as Zumarrad says, there's no distinguishing between high art and low art then why do so many of us (myself included) blanche and then turn hot as hell at the suggestion we be lumped with strippers? Isn't exotic dancing a form of entertainment. Entertainment which by the majority of the arguments formed here, is just as worthy as "art"? That art is somehow different, or lower? Believe me I get why we work so hard to break that misconception, I'm not advocating a position, I'm stirring the pot--just to be clear.

These days strippers have to be athletes, so far as I can see. The reason BDers don't want to be lumped with strippers is because we *were* really similar to them for a long time. I must ask Tinah for the name of the book but I know she did some research and apparently it was very normal for strippers in the 50s to pretend to be BDers and wear BD costumes so that if their gig got busted, they could say "oh no we are not strippers! We are belly dancers! I'm just not wearing my bra because I was changing costumes, get out of my dressing room you dreadful policeman!" AND the whole "exotic oriental womanhood" thing has been linked with sexuality for centuries in the western world - we can't just turn it off overnight. Even in the ME a dancer who performs is no better than she should be, and ME people will tell you quite straight most of the time that a BDer needs to be sexy. I think - my latest theory is - that the reason for so much ambivalence regarding BD from ME people is that, like sexuality, it's properly contained in the domestic sphere, so it's a bit like family. THEY can criticise it and be embarrassed by Aunty Raqs but when other people do her thing it can feel a bit like the family is being breached - hence "oh only Egyptians can *really* BD".

I think the BD world is a little behind the "art" world precisely because it isn't the "art" world and has not managed to break into it yet. See, even though there technically is no difference between high and low culture, obviously there still is, otherwise artists wouldn't be producing stuff that makes you go "wtf" and putting it in galleries. There's a tension there as artists continue to fight to be relevant and real. Otherwise they'd be gone and we'd have movies, TV and posters. Oh, wait...

I don't think most BDers are performance artists. But we are performING artists.

Originally Posted by indigostars

I'm going to argue that a lot of strippers aren't artists. To me, art is something that takes time to develop and is thoughtful, communicates something. An artist does whatever s/he does for the sheer love of it and is constantly striving to improve the work.

I'm not convinced that applies to most strippers, but I could be wrong.

I don't know if I agree with your last statement--only because I can't generalize all strippers having lived in San Francisco when the infamous Lusty Lady was trying to unionize (yay, they did!) and those women had an incredibly intelligent perspective on what they did (was it work, entertainment, art, all, none??). Also, if we generalize like that where does burlesque fit into the art of the strip tease?? That's a whole other tangent, back to the belly dancer debate:
However, I whole-heartedly agree with the first assertion: an artist is driven, moved, called by some deeper purpose to create. I was a dancer for 20 years before I discovered belly dance & found the dance that moved me to go beyond learning the steps & executing them well for an audience. I always wanted to be a ballerina, I just wasn't. I could run through the motions with the best of them, that art wasn't in me, but dance was and my inner dancer was a belly dancer. I simply can't contain that energy and movement that exists within me.

Originally Posted by artemisia_danst

she called it pearls for the pigs (do you have that expression in english).

Yes, ma'am. It's "pearls before swine," as in:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 7:6 (from the Sermon on the Mount)

Loving this discussion.

</delurk>

By the definition that Art needs to somehow challenge people, break new ground, not just display a learned skill in the way that skill was intended --

is traditional ballet art?
The creation of a magnificent painting or photograph in an already-developed style?
Is an opera performance art?

Making a semi-educated guess here:

Art has changed. Its purposes and contexts have changed. I would guess that within the ballet world, there are discussions daily about whether or not Swan Lake remains artistically relevant. Why do dance companies put on Swan Lake/Coppelia/The Nutcracker? Because audiences will flock to them. They're safe and entertaining. Why do repertory theatre companies put on Charley's Aunt/anything at all by Oscar Wilde/anything at all by Roger Hall (in my neck of the woods)? For the same reason. They bring in the bucks to support their desire to do challenging weird theatre pieces for 40 people. Similarly, why do people keep "updating" Shakespeare or doing Brecht with gender switches? To keep them fresh, relevant and "artistically satisfying."

The Mona Lisa was art when it was made. You paint like that now without a heavy dose of irony and you're not going to be taken seriously in the art world. You're just a portrait painter. Of course, you may well sell a ton of paintings to your wealthy patrons and do very nicely, thank you, but I bet you'll cry into your gold-encrusted pillow at night thinking "why does nobody take my art seriously!!!"

Originally Posted by nayastrance

Does it matter who's watching you, or if anyone is watching at all? Does that distinguish what you call youself or how you view your belly dance practice? If belly dance is both art & entertainment, does your audience matter?

I'm going to say that it totally matters. Because the audience is also the customer, and deserves to get what they paid to see.

An audience at an "evening of experimental dance" event (there are several MED events of this nature in the U.S.) expects to be provoked and see boundaries being broken. They paid for tickets, they deserve the respect of being shown what they came to see. My cutest, bounciest Hakim bop would be a major disappointment to them.

The audience at Uncle Joe's 50th birthday party wants to see a pretty girl wiggle around in some sequins or coins. I'm going to give them a little dose of artistry and hope by the time I leave they're thinking 'gee, that bellydance is a whole lot more artistic than I thought.' But I'm certainly not going to paint myself blue or pierce my flesh with Indian blades for them. That would be very disrespectful.

Originally Posted by whitneync

I've studied the question "What is (fine) Art?" during and since my graduation with a bachelors of fine art degree in painting. I haven't done much consideration of performance art, as of yet, but I can say (please don't flame, this is coming from a well educated stand point) that belly dance, whether on stage or at a restaurant, is typically not Art. I would consider the PURE events as performance art, but not the typical restaurant appearance, hafla, or theater show (including BDSS). My reason for this is that these events are based on displaying a learned skill, in the way the learned skill was intended to be showcased.

I disagree. My BFA in drawing (often maligned as not AS fine art as painting) was a while back, so I am rusty. I think the separation between craft/skill and art isn't that easy to define....making the craft not a thing separate from the artist was some of what Bauhaus and foundation year structure of many art degrees was and is about.

If all the restaurant,halfas, and theater shows were only presenations of pre-learned choreographies without alteration or emotion..I might agree.

Knitting is a craft. Knitting something well from a pattern is a display of your skills to an intended end. The basics of knitting, however, can be used ways that create art when the creator takes what they have learned and use it to interpret their own vision and ideas.

Dancing in restaurants can be a demonstration of learned skills and general craftsmanship. When that is all that it is it can be pretty numbing. Dancing in restaurants, stages, halfas can transend displaying skills when the dancer uses those skills to share with us their interpretation and vision of the music they are reacting to and interacting with.

Restaurants show can be art the same way that illustration can be art. Much of it isn't, but it can, and sometimes is.

Some of this might stem from my feeling that everything I did with PURE was pretty by the book. It was innovative in where and to whom it presented the dance but the dance itself didn't strike me as particularly visionary or creative.

Originally Posted by nayastrance

I don't know if I agree with your last statement--only because I can't generalize all strippers having lived in San Francisco when the infamous Lusty Lady was trying to unionize (yay, they did!) and those women had an incredibly intelligent perspective on what they did (was it work, entertainment, art, all, none??). Also, if we generalize like that where does burlesque fit into the art of the strip tease?? That's a whole other tangent, back to the belly dancer debate:
However, I whole-heartedly agree with the first assertion: an artist is driven, moved, called by some deeper purpose to create. I was a dancer for 20 years before I discovered belly dance & found the dance that moved me to go beyond learning the steps & executing them well for an audience. I always wanted to be a ballerina, I just wasn't. I could run through the motions with the best of them, that art wasn't in me, but dance was and my inner dancer was a belly dancer. I simply can't contain that energy and movement that exists within me.

I'm thinking of several people I knew who worked at different places around the US. They did it because they were broke and it was a fast way to make money. They treated the job like a job vs. a passion. Only one person I know (male) genuinely enjoys it.

I don't think strippers are idiots (some of them were working to pay for college), but based on friends' tales and their experiences, I'm not entirely convinced that strippers at the local strip club would do it if the money weren't so damn good. I don't think they worked at shaking their stuff or really expressing themselves. My male friend who's a stripper I think sees himself as entertainer. There are probably strippers who are artistic, but I haven't seen them.

I don't mean to be derogatory about what they do, but I do think most strippers, at least in the US, fall under an entertainment category. I think there is nothing wrong with be entertaining. Are clowns truly artists? Character actors at Disney? Rockettes?

I think the separation between craft/skill and art isn't that easy to define....making the craft not a thing separate from the artist was some of what Bauhaus and foundation year structure of many art degrees was and is about.

I think that's what makes me go wtf about some art that I see. I know or knew a lot of people who did design degrees and quite a few of them have gone on to be Proper Artists with pieces in Proper Art Gallery permanent collections and everything. What I like about what these artists do is that there is craft and technique. Their work is nicely executed. They know how to sew and screenprint, for instance, so they use those skills and produce art pieces that are also functional christening gowns, albeit christening gowns with the heads of gobbling baby birds printed all over them. And then I had friends who did graduate painting degrees at the Royal Academy in London who, similarly, did perfectly nicely executed work, but oh my GOD some of the crud that I saw produced by RA people broke my brain. Someone would make a collage and wouldn't even stick the pieces down properly, causing it to look dumb - if it was a Meaningful Decision it didn't work. It just looked tacky and illmade.

Most NZ art that I have seen is obviously technically good, but I know people with fine arts degrees who *sneer visibly* at the notion of ugh, CRAFT.

Originally Posted by Lauren_

I'm going to say that it totally matters. Because the audience is also the customer, and deserves to get what they paid to see.

An audience at an "evening of experimental dance" event (there are several MED events of this nature in the U.S.) expects to be provoked and see boundaries being broken. They paid for tickets, they deserve the respect of being shown what they came to see. My cutest, bounciest Hakim bop would be a major disappointment to them.

The audience at Uncle Joe's 50th birthday party wants to see a pretty girl wiggle around in some sequins or coins. I'm going to give them a little dose of artistry and hope by the time I leave they're thinking 'gee, that bellydance is a whole lot more artistic than I thought.' But I'm certainly not going to paint myself blue or pierce my flesh with Indian blades for them. That would be very disrespectful.

As usual, Lauren has said everyhting I wanted to, but more succintly!

I think belly dance performances are sometimes "art", sometimes "entertainment", and sometimes "both". It depends on the nature of what the person who recruited the dancer is wanting, and it also depends on the intention of the performer and the choreographer (if different).

There are some belly dance choreographies which are "tuition choreographies", meaning they are created for the purpose of helping students drill themselves in a skill being taught. Such choreographies *might" also be "art" or "entertaining", but I've seen many that were neither. (Example: the choreographies used on the many "belly dance for exercise" videos.)

Example of belly dance as "entertainment" but not art: dancer goes from table to table in a restaurant and gets audience members up to dance with her.

Example of belly dance as "art": the same restaurant dancer does a veil work segment to mournful music wearing a blue costume and using 4-yard veil in a section of the restaurant with enough floor space for her to move freely. Her city has recently been devastated by a huge flood and she has chosen to use her dance to express the grief she feels over the suffering of people who have lost their homes and jobs. She is using her large blue veil to represent the river, and as she takes it through various wraps around her body she is using those as a symbol for the river covering people's homes, businesses, and museums.

Example of belly dance as both "art" and "entertainment": the above restaurant dancer is known for her breathtakingly beautiful veil work, so even audience members who have no idea that there's a whole flood-oriented "undercurrent" to her dance still enjoy the sight of the flowing fabric and the soft, sinuous movement of her body.

Example of belly dance as "drill": the same dancer teaches a "belly dance for exercise" class at a neighborhood gym the next night and after warming up leads the group through a fairly simple set of 4 or 5 combinations, each repeated 4 times identically, then starting over at the beginning, for a full 20 minutes of continuous movement. The only "audience" are a couple of gym members, one who is curious about joining the class and wanting to see what it's like, another who is recovering from an injury but coming to watch as a way of keeping in touch.

Originally Posted by *Shira*

Example of belly dance as both "art" and "entertainment": the above restaurant dancer is known for her breathtakingly beautiful veil work, so even audience members who have no idea that there's a whole flood-oriented "undercurrent" to her dance still enjoy the sight of the flowing fabric and the soft, sinuous movement of her body.

Lovely post, Shira.

I often enjoy art on the level you're describing above. I haven't studied art formally much, tend to miss the most obvious symbolism even in literature, and often don't 'get' art on an intellectual level. I'm usually letting it wash over me on a visceral level, or enjoying the craft of fine art.

(my father, brother, and daughter are all fine artists. Somehow that gene missed me.)

My use of PURE as an example was to highlight not the dance itself, but the presentation. The repetition of forms itself, is the artistry. Somewhat like the artist Magdalena's work.

The line between art and craft is often misaligned, and as a fiber artist (yes, I knit as well as crochet, spin, and weave) that is a question that many seek to answer, but my "main" question does not revolve around that, as I have resolved it for myself years ago. These questions often have to be resolved for ones self. If a dancer feels her dance is art, then that may be the defining factor to say that it is. Who has the right to override that decision?