Event Directors and How Contests are Judged
kelly mcmillan
first time to the event and I was impressed with the level of dance
across the board. I was a little disappointed that I chose to dance
in my first high level advanced contest only to realize that I would
be dancing against individuals that normally dance in "All-Stars" like
Edwin Li, Michael Topel and others(they didn't offer an All-Star
division). But it was good experience.
Now to the point. There was a couple from Louisianna that happened to
draw each other in the Novice Finals. They were both very good
dancers and they had a terrific dance. As a matter of fact it looked
very much like their 3rd place Stricly Swing Dance. But I was quite
surprised at the Awards Ceremony when they were awarded first place.
I'm not a judge, and I usually can't tell a lot of difference between
the first and fifth place dances, but I do know what "Swing" is and
can tell when a dance is no where near 80% swing. There was at least
one 32 beat phrase where the male never a 1 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6 in any
form.
Some time after the event I was telling this story to an individual
who has judged nationally, danced Champions and has won at the US
Open. He told me straight out, it Dallas you are told as judges that
"it's all about the show". Whereas when I was in Denver we were told
that they were judging on the 3 T's and that the dance must be 80%
Swing, as it was in Phoenix this year.
So here is the question. In an event that earns you WCSD points,
should there be difference judging criteria?
Mike Corbett
wrote:
The short answer to your question, IMO, is "no". :-)
Never heard of the WCSD but I suppose you mean the World Swing Dance
Council or WSDC. You can find the applicable requirements at
www.swingdancecouncil.com but you won't find any judging requirements
there. The WSDC doesn't DO that.
As a practical matter nobody has any control over what judges do
besides the judges themselves.
You can also do all the research your fingers and eyes can stand and
never find an agreed upon definition of swing content OR any way to
reliably measure it. One thing is for sure and that is that doing
basics with strict basic timing even once in a competition dance won't
be a part of any definition you find.
The bottom line is whomever told you what judging criteria the judges
would be using at any event was expressing a wish or desire, not a
fact.
I sat behind the judges for each contest and mock judged the contests
except for the Male Pro-Am I judged. By the way, I received no such
instruction as your source indicates. I didn't see any problem with
the dance in question and had that couple in first place on my own
mock judging sheet. I thought it was a great dance that interpreted
the music well.
Mike Corbett - Carrollton, TX
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that
take our breath away. George Carlin
Icono Clast
the RELATIVE PLACEMENT Scoring System explained page
http://geocities.com/dancefest/Articles/RelPlace.html#t at the site
at Left in the sig that might help you to understand how judges go
about doing what they do. It won't help you to agree with them, though.
> So here is the question. In an event that earns you WCSD points,
> should there be difference judging criteria?
I think not but the WSDC doesn't tell event promoters what and/or how
to do anything except maybe to report the results of competitions.
________________________________________________________________
A San Franciscan who never says "No!" to an invitation to dance!
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
kelly mcmillan
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>So Mike, do you feel like the dance in question was "in your opinion" 80% swing?
Short answer, yes.
I already indicated there's no reliable way to either define or
calculate the percentage of swing, so it's really a moot point.
If it wasn't swing, what was it instead?
The dancers used the general structure and fundamentals of WCS to
interpret the music played. They used passes, whips and pushes as
recognizable swing patterns.
Novice level competitors at National Swing dance events are NOT
beginner dancers and are NOT expected to limit their footwork to the
rhythms taught with the basic patterns.
The only swing content comment you made specifically referred to how
basic patterns are generally counted when taught. That's not part of
anybody's official attempt at defining swing, much less any
nonexistent accepted definition.
Did you have any other specific critique of the dancing?
kelly mcmillan
>
> The only swing content comment you made specifically referred to how
> basic patterns are generally counted when taught. That's not part of
> anybody's official attempt at defining swing, much less any
> nonexistent accepted definition.
So then, there is no way that any judge can use the "80% Swing"
criteria when judging a dance. That is like saying not all judges
argee on what "perfect timing" is, so we'll just throw that out as a
judging criteria. And technique has so much to do with style that we
can never agree on what is good technique so we can't use that one
either.
>
> Did you have any other specific critique of the dancing?
Absolutely not. As I stated, it was a very good dance, enjoyable, and
very high level for any Novice competition I have ever seen. My only
point was that I would change my dance considerably if I knew that
there is no such thing as 80% Swing, because in this age of WCS,
dancers seemed to be rewarded for that type of dance.
This whole thread was really prompted by a similar thread as it
related to the 4th of July event in Phoenix. L Perez commented on why
he wasn't allowed to dance more like the Champions having been
reminded in the contestants meeting about 80% swing content.
Bob Wheatley
news:c1873dad.04091...@posting.google.com...
> Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message
> news:<vehhk0lrlosqvrfbe...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> The only swing content comment you made specifically referred to how
>> basic patterns are generally counted when taught. That's not part of
>> anybody's official attempt at defining swing, much less any
>> nonexistent accepted definition.
>
> So then, there is no way that any judge can use the "80% Swing"
> criteria when judging a dance. That is like saying not all judges
> argee on what "perfect timing" is, so we'll just throw that out as a
> judging criteria. And technique has so much to do with style that we
> can never agree on what is good technique so we can't use that one
> either.
>
Kelly,
Are you proposing that judges utilize calculators in order to adhere
precisely to the rules?
You stated earlier that the leader of the couple in question used no "Swing"
footwork for an entire phrase. First of all - I doubt that, but I'll take
your word for it.
Let's pretend I was there, which I wasn't, and I was using my trusty
calculator.
Based on your own observations and a few assumptions I offer the following:
1 1/2 minutes of 120 BPM Swing music equals a total of 180 beats.
180 x 80% = 144 beats minimum "Swing" requirement.
180 beats - 32 beats (phrase) = 148 beats
The couple in question is in compliance by your previously posted
assertions. In any case, it's too close to call. And I'm sure that the
phrase in question was seen by others differently than how you seen it.
Virually everything used to measure dance is "subjective" and I for one
prefer it that way.
If our art turns to science, then our artists will be engineers.
Not a pretty sight.:>)
Bob Wheatley
Ed Jay
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote
>> The only swing content comment you made specifically referred to how
>> basic patterns are generally counted when taught. That's not part of
>> anybody's official attempt at defining swing, much less any
>> nonexistent accepted definition.
>
>So then, there is no way that any judge can use the "80% Swing"
>criteria when judging a dance. That is like saying not all judges
>argee on what "perfect timing" is, so we'll just throw that out as a
>judging criteria. And technique has so much to do with style that we
>can never agree on what is good technique so we can't use that one
>either.
>
To paraphrase what a judge once remarked, "I can't define Swing, but I
know it when I see it."
Have you read NASDE's current definition of Swing?
"Swing is an American Rhythm Dance based on a foundation of 6-beat and
8-beat patterns that incorporate a wide variety of rhythms built on 2-beat
single, delayed, double, triple, and blank rhythm units. The 6-beat
patterns include, but are not limited to, passes, underarm turns,
push-breaks, open-to-closed, and closed-to-open position patterns. The
8-beat patterns include, but are not limited to, whips, swing-outs, Lindy
circles, and Shag pivots. Although they are not part of the foundation of
the dance as stated above, 2- beat and 4-beat extension rhythm breaks may
be incorporated to extend a pattern, to phrase the music, and/or to accent
breaks."
Ed Jay (remove M to respond)
Bob Wheatley
<snipped>
Heeyyyy !!
I thought you were on vacation! :>)
Bob Wheatley
Ed Jay
>"Ed Jay" <Me...@aes-intl.com> wrote
>
><snipped>
>
>Heeyyyy !!
>I thought you were on vacation! :>)
>
Wasn't a vacation. Spent two days in Korea and three days in Japan on
business. I think I've set the new record for the shortest retirement. :-)
Vacation? Woo hoo...we're leaving early tomorrow morning with six friends
for SOS in Myrtle Beach. :-)
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message news:<vehhk0lrlosqvrfbe...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> The only swing content comment you made specifically referred to how
>> basic patterns are generally counted when taught. That's not part of
>> anybody's official attempt at defining swing, much less any
>> nonexistent accepted definition.
>
>So then, there is no way that any judge can use the "80% Swing"
>criteria when judging a dance. That is like saying not all judges
>argee on what "perfect timing" is, so we'll just throw that out as a
>judging criteria. And technique has so much to do with style that we
>can never agree on what is good technique so we can't use that one
>either.
I didn't say there was "no way". There is "no way" to consistently
and reliably determine or "calculate" the percentage of swing content.
What judges tend to do is penalize couples for dancing too much of
something that is clearly something else besides swing. Note the
ambiguity of the word "tend" and note that "ambiguous" and "no way"
are not synonymous.
>>
>> Did you have any other specific critique of the dancing?
>
>Absolutely not. As I stated, it was a very good dance, enjoyable, and
>very high level for any Novice competition I have ever seen. My only
>point was that I would change my dance considerably if I knew that
>there is no such thing as 80% Swing, because in this age of WCS,
>dancers seemed to be rewarded for that type of dance.
No need to change your dance. I didn't say there was "no such thing
as 80% swing". I said there was no consistent usable definition and
no way to do the calculations accurately if there was a usable
definition. I further DISAGREED with your own way of determining what
"wasn't swing". Try dancing more than a smidgen of stuff that IS
something else besides swing and you'll find yourself doing poorly
with the judges.
John Wheaton
> criteria when judging a dance. That is like saying not all judges
> argee on what "perfect timing" is, so we'll just throw that out as a
> judging criteria.
Not so! There have been contests that I`ve been judging that had a content
rule. The Judges have to ask in the Judges meeting what the Chief Judge
wants done if we are sure that there`s a content violation. I`ve had events
where we`ve been instructed to score the dance without considering the
violation and if the majority of the judges see the violation then the Chief
Judge bumps the contestants out of the money. The way it`s been usually done
these days is that the judge reflects the violation in their score and apply
it under content on the scoring sheet. That later is the way that I prefer
to do it.
See ya,
John
Stan Graves
> If our art turns to science, then our artists will be engineers.
> Not a pretty sight.:>)
Is that better or worse than having our engineers being artists?
kelly mcmillan
> and reliably determine or "calculate" the percentage of swing content.
> What judges tend to do is penalize couples for dancing too much of
> something that is clearly something else besides swing. Note the
> ambiguity of the word "tend" and note that "ambiguous" and "no way"
> are not synonymous.
Then I agree with you that under these conditions it would be very
hard to use as a judging criteria.
> No need to change your dance. I didn't say there was "no such thing
> as 80% swing". I said there was no consistent usable definition and
> no way to do the calculations accurately if there was a usable
> definition. I further DISAGREED with your own way of determining what
> "wasn't swing". Try dancing more than a smidgen of stuff that IS
> something else besides swing and you'll find yourself doing poorly
> with the judges.
If not doing what is considered standard West Coast patterns is not
not dancing swing as it relates to West Coast, then is there anything
that would be considered not dancing swing if you were to not do it?
kelly mcmillan
Thank you John. Any chance you could give an example of what is not
swing that is commonly danced today, so I might better understand
this?
John Wheaton
> swing that is commonly danced today, so I might better understand
> this?
1) In a Showcase contest, you`ll have break aways, lifts, and drops. Those
are expected to be part of the routine. However not more than 40% can be
those types of moves. So well more than half needs to be recognizeable
Swing.
2) I`ve seen other contests where they are just walking through the dance,
rather than recognized patterns/moves.
3) There was a time when some routines were more Hustle than Swing having
check steps on the end rather than an anchor/triple.
There`s a few off the top of my head,
John
Jon Leech
Would you rather have an ugly painting in the hotel lobby, or a
hotel that collapses catastrophically?
Jon
__@/
Bob Wheatley
news:3d6c6fc3.04091...@posting.google.com...
Engineers can be artists.
Art can not be engineering.
Bob Wheatley
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I didn't say there was "no way". There is "no way" to consistently
>> and reliably determine or "calculate" the percentage of swing content.
>> What judges tend to do is penalize couples for dancing too much of
>> something that is clearly something else besides swing. Note the
>> ambiguity of the word "tend" and note that "ambiguous" and "no way"
>> are not synonymous.
>
>Then I agree with you that under these conditions it would be very
>hard to use as a judging criteria.
>
>
>> No need to change your dance. I didn't say there was "no such thing
>> as 80% swing". I said there was no consistent usable definition and
>> no way to do the calculations accurately if there was a usable
>> definition. I further DISAGREED with your own way of determining what
>> "wasn't swing". Try dancing more than a smidgen of stuff that IS
>> something else besides swing and you'll find yourself doing poorly
>> with the judges.
>
>If not doing what is considered standard West Coast patterns is not
>not dancing swing as it relates to West Coast, then is there anything
>that would be considered not dancing swing if you were to not do it?
If by "standard West Coast Swing patterns" you mean 1 2 3 a4 5 a6,
you say a syncopation is not swing. That's the kind of critique you
gave on the competition dance you mentioned. As I responded, the
couple used recognizable Swing patterns like passes, pushes, whips,
anchors, etc. extensively while doing a good job of interpreting the
music.
Syncopations are part of swing dancing. Cha-Cha, Hustle etc. are not.
Mike Corbett
wrote:
John mentions methods by which a judges decision about swing content
is used to impact the results but does not mention how the judge
decides there is a violation. He doesn't indicate the criteria he
uses or method of calculating the percentage. Of course he uses
"criteria" and "method" as do I and all the judges I know but neither
is consistently recognized or applied. Further the criteria has never
excluded syncopated footwork.
I don't understand why you, Kelly, are getting the impression that
swing content is not considered. It is, just not the way you
described it or with any consistency of method or criteria.
Peter D
news:cicsob$1q9u37$1...@fido.engr.sgi.com...
I'd rather have a beautiful painting in the lobby of a hotel that doesn't
collapse.
I don't think it's a good thing to think of art and science as somehow
separate or opposites. Both are necessary. Both serve a purpose. Each gives
to the other something that the other lacks. Each adds something to the
other that can serve to enhance it.
For example, in dancing, "art" allows for and defines creative expression,
interpretation, the "feel" of a particular piece of music or "mood" of a
place, couple, or music. These are hard to define "scientifically". "Art"
helps us identify (and appreciate) intangilbe elements of what makes a
"great" performance. And more than that. "Science" helps us define the
required elements, the range of permitted tempo, the length of the piece,
the style of the music, the minimum standard for the performance to be
considered still within the preset style of a competition.
Give me the Artist and the Engineer. And encourage them both to excel and
not settle for mediocre work.
kelly mcmillan
>
> I don't understand why you, Kelly, are getting the impression that
> swing content is not considered. It is, just not the way you
> described it or with any consistency of method or criteria.
>
>
> Mike Corbett - Carrollton, TX
>
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that
> take our breath away. George Carlin
First, unless you and I get a chance to sit down and watch the dance
on tape together, we'll probably not agree on whether there was or was
not 80% swing in the dance. That being the case, the conversation
evolved into a question of whether or not
"There is "no way" to consistently and reliably determine or
"calculate" the percentage of swing content."
IF you are correct, then I contend that using swing content as a
judging criteria is erroneous. I do know for a fact that there are
head judges that tell both the judges and the competitors that they
will judge/be judged on swing content.
John Wheaton
"kelly mcmillan" <ke...@mcmfamily.com> wrote in message I do know for a
> head judges that tell both the judges and the competitors that they
> will judge/be judged on swing content.
I can assure you that even if the judges are NOT instructed to watch swing
content, any competent judge still does. After all it is a Swing Dance
Contest. It`s not Hustle, Cha Cha, or Samba, it`s a Swing contest. All of
the judging forms have a space to note "Content". That is/should be
reflected in the score. The only time that I can think of when I`m not
keeping swing content in mind is Cabaret, when it`s anything other than
Swing.
See ya,
John
Terry Rippa
dance?
Terry Rippa
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we may as
well dance.
Kel
<snip>
>
> Engineers can be artists.
> Art can not be engineering.
Au contraire. There ARE cases in which engineering must be applied even
to art. For instance, sculptures have been removed from public places when
deemed to be mechanically hazardous to the public.
One example: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/exhibits/weird/hotcurl.htm
In this case, the art was put back on display after engineering was applied
to it, solving the problem.
Generalizations are always [well, usually ;-) ] dangerous, and this is a
particularly hazardous place to say anything that might be interpreted as
denigrating to engineers. Dance seems to attract the more articulate and
artistic individuals of that profession. LOL.
Kel Tyree
www.time-machines.com
[***NOTE*** To reply directly, remove the numeric
character from the above e-addr; otherwise,
your message will go to The Twilight Zone...]
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message news:<a3akk0d9td57a5t3v...@4ax.com>...
Both assertions are true.
1. There ARE head judges that tell both the judges and the
competitors that they WILL judge/be judged on swing content.
2. "There IS "MO way" to consistently and reliably determine or
"calculate" the percentage of swing content."
The competitors WILL be judged on swing content using methods which
produce inconsistent and unreliable determinations of swing content.
Since this is the case, judges tend to err on the side of the
competitor in all but the most glaring of cases.
Peter D
news:26dd7265.04091...@posting.google.com...
> "Bob Wheatley" <master...@Xverizon.net> wrote in message
news:<RKm2d.4625$g9.3908@trnddc06>...
> <snip>
> >
> > Engineers can be artists.
> > Art can not be engineering.
>
> Au contraire. There ARE cases in which engineering must be applied even
> to art. For instance, sculptures have been removed from public places
when
> deemed to be mechanically hazardous to the public.
>
> One example: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/exhibits/weird/hotcurl.htm
>
> In this case, the art was put back on display after engineering was
applied
> to it, solving the problem.
>
> Generalizations are always [well, usually ;-) ] dangerous, and this is a
> particularly hazardous place to say anything that might be interpreted as
> denigrating to engineers. Dance seems to attract the more articulate and
> artistic individuals of that profession. LOL.
And dance is both an "art" and a "science". It makes sense that it would
attract artistic engineers. And science-inclined artists. There is no
dichotomy between art/sceince, artist.engineer. :-)
Jon Leech
Terry Rippa <Terry...@webtv.net> wrote:
>What percent of a swing dance is swing required to qualify it as a swing
>dance?
And for extra credit: how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a
woodchuck could chuck wood?
Jon
__@/
tim allman
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Finallly! A good answer!
Tim Allman
kelly mcmillan
At Dallas D.A.N.C.E.? I don't know, it was not a subject mentioned in
the contestants meeting. In Phoenix and Denver, we were reminded more
than once in the contestants meeting at each event that the swing
content must be 80% or higher.
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Terry...@webtv.net (Terry Rippa) wrote in message news:<253-414...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>...
That is a valid and worthy encouragement. I hope it was heeded.
Did anybody at either Denver or Phoenix happen to mention any criteria
or method by which the percentage would be measured? :-)
Peter D
news:cifqg7$1rl7jb$1...@fido.engr.sgi.com...
What's a "woodchuck" anyway? And how does a woodchuck(er) chuck wood? :-)
Terry Rippa
"What percent of a swing dance is swing required to qualify it as a
swing dance?"
Make light of this question and giggle as you may but this is a very
serious question that has been posed to event directors, rule makers,
judges and competitors for years. I noticed a lack of posted
answers/opinions. I would love to hear some responses. Remember, there
are facts and opinions; there are objective and subjective answers.
BTW, Kelly, there should be no different judging criteria, nor was
there. I hope you enjoyed your first Dallas DANCE.
Also, from our website:
www.DallasDANCE.com
37. Best wins. Judges will have the freedom to judge the
overall performance of the dancers based upon the following criteria:
PRESENTATION AND MUSICAL INTERPRETATION: Dancing with
confidence and charisma, creating interest in the performance,
regardless of the style. Responding to the music by taking the dance
beyond a mere combination of patterns.
TEAMWORK/CONNECTION: An appropriate and confident lead
combined with response without fault or hesitation; the attractive
give-and-take of a couple dancing as a balanced partnership.
TECHNIQUE: The command of the fundamental elements
of dance; the evident ease and clean execution of the performance
(especially of more difficult elements).
TIMING/RHYTHM: The appropriate matching of body motions
and footwork to the meters and rhythms of the music.
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>I asked:
>"What percent of a swing dance is swing required to qualify it as a
>swing dance?"
>
>Make light of this question and giggle as you may but this is a very
>serious question that has been posed to event directors, rule makers,
>judges and competitors for years. I noticed a lack of posted
>answers/opinions. I would love to hear some responses. Remember, there
>are facts and opinions; there are objective and subjective answers.
Terry,
I don't think anybody understood the question. Would you mind
restating it?
kelly mcmillan
> >the contestants meeting. In Phoenix and Denver, we were reminded more
> >than once in the contestants meeting at each event that the swing
> >content must be 80% or higher.
>
> That is a valid and worthy encouragement. I hope it was heeded.
>
> Did anybody at either Denver or Phoenix happen to mention any criteria
> or method by which the percentage would be measured? :-)
>
>
> Mike Corbett - Carrollton, TX
>
I guess you would have to ask any of the judges that were at either
event, the contestants weren't told how the judging would be done,
only what we would be judged on. We were also informed that we would
be judged on the "3 T's" Timing, Technique and Teamwork without being
given any indication of how that would be accomplished either.
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message
I think you are getting the point. It hardly matters what the judges
were told about percentages or how to consider them unless the
competitors have the same information. Actually, I expect you got the
same information the judges did wrt percentages :-)
The three T's are discussed often but how each judge considers them
will vary.
Mike Corbett - Carrollton, TX
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that
Swin...@webtv.net
think all major events have rules including judging guidelines/criteria,
etc. How many entries were there...200, ie,...400 individuals? If I
enter any contest, I would research first. AAMOF, anything I spend my
money and time on I would do the same...just like shopping :-)
There are only two ways of telling the complete truth - anonymously and
posthumously.
Thomas Sowell
Bob Wheatley
> news:<RKm2d.4625$g9.3908@trnddc06>...
> <snip>
>>
>> Engineers can be artists.
>> Art can not be engineering.
>
> Au contraire. There ARE cases in which engineering must be applied even
> to art. For instance, sculptures have been removed from public places
> when
> deemed to be mechanically hazardous to the public.
>
> One example: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/exhibits/weird/hotcurl.htm
>
No. You confuse the issue.
An artist created the sculpture.
An engineer determined it's dispensation.
Separate issues......
Bob Wheatley
Richard Maurer
Engineers can be artists.
Art can not be engineering.
What about that DaVinci fellow?
He put engineering in his art
and art in his engineering.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Although, I never saw him dance. Suspicious)
DavKopp
I'd say the Golden Gate Bridge was both an egineering feat and a work of art.
David Koppelman
Icono Clast
> I'd say the Golden Gate Bridge was both an egineering feat
> and a work of art.
As well one ought. And it was considerably enhanced by the
illumination first turned on in 1987, an event witnessed by me in the
company of more than a hundred thousand others.
____________________________________________________________
One of (as of 2003) 751,682 residents of San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
Bob Wheatley
news:01c49ed3$f3176020$19c9480c@default...
> Bob Wheatley wrote:
> Engineers can be artists.
> Art can not be engineering.
>
>
>
> What about that DaVinci fellow?
> He put engineering in his art
> and art in his engineering.
>
So, when you see art do you immediately start appreciating the algorithms,
mathematics, and geometric equations, or the art?
There is science in every beautiful thing on earth. No one needs to know the
science to know the beauty.
Bob Wheatley
Peter D
news:20040920014701...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> >Bob Wheatley wrote:
> > Engineers can be artists.
> > Art can not be engineering.
> >What about that DaVinci fellow?
> >He put engineering in his art
> >and art in his engineering.
> I'd say the Golden Gate Bridge was both an egineering feat and a work of
art.
The Empire State Building, the Twin Towers, The Sydney Opera House, The
Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Collossus of Rhodes, the Pyramids, Mayan
Temples, Inca Temples, Salisbury Cathedral, St. Peter's in Rome, The Sistine
Chapel, The Leaning Tower of Pisa, St Paul's, Manchester Central Library,
the Llangollen Aqueduct, the Ribble Viaduct, The White House, the Pentagon,
the Palace at Versailles, the Arc de'Triomphe, the Eiffel Tower, David's
Michelangelo ... thousands upon thousands , probably millions upon millions,
of examples exist of art that is engineered and engineering that is art.
There is no "art can not be engineering". Like theology and philosophy, they
are complementary, each benefiting by the contribution of the other.
Victor Eijkhout
> So, when you see art do you immediately start appreciating the algorithms,
> mathematics, and geometric equations, or the art?
Depends. I took my brother -- an engineer if ever there was one -- to
the Guggenheim. We were looking at the metal sculpture outside. His
first reaction: "Hm. Sloppy welding".
> There is science in every beautiful thing on earth.
There's also science in every ugly thing. (That reminds me of that Monty
Python song. Google for "all things dull and ugly")
> No one needs to know the
> science to know the beauty.
That's how I feel about it. Most of the time knowing the science behind
something is irrelevant to the esthetic appreciation of it. Most of the
time in fact it feels forced to me to drag science in it. The few cases
(Escher) where you can genuinely point at lots of deep math, the artist
was unaware of it. When the artist consciously put it in, it's usually
pretty bad art. Of course, engineers consciously put all that physics in
the Golden Gate bridge, but not in service of any esthetic result. I
think that we find something like a bridge beautiful is a side effect.
Something can be very functional without being pretty.
V.
kelly mcmillan
> I asked:
> "What percent of a swing dance is swing required to qualify it as a
> swing dance?"
My answer was a serious one. In Phoenix and Denver (just two
examples) 80%
> BTW, Kelly, there should be no different judging criteria, nor was
> there. I hope you enjoyed your first Dallas DANCE.
As I stated in the first line, we had a great time. The event was
top notch. And even the notorious "smoking in the ballroom", not the
song by Brownsville Station, was never an issue.
>
> Also, from our website:
> www.DallasDANCE.com
>
> 37. Best wins. Judges will have the freedom to judge the
> overall performance of the dancers based upon the following criteria:
> PRESENTATION AND MUSICAL INTERPRETATION: Dancing with
> confidence and charisma, creating interest in the performance,
> regardless of the style. Responding to the music by taking the dance
> beyond a mere combination of patterns.
> TEAMWORK/CONNECTION: An appropriate and confident lead
> combined with response without fault or hesitation; the attractive
> give-and-take of a couple dancing as a balanced partnership.
> TECHNIQUE: The command of the fundamental elements
> of dance; the evident ease and clean execution of the performance
> (especially of more difficult elements).
> TIMING/RHYTHM: The appropriate matching of body motions
> and footwork to the meters and rhythms of the music.
And if these were the guidelines for which I was to judge the dance in
question, I too would have given it first place, easily. Especially
if the listing order above was of significant value.
Yes Mike I get your point. SUBJECTIVE, and even with guidelines it
matters not what the judges are told because they will iew the dance
from a unique perspective in every case.
tim allman
<Swin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22486-41...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
WTH is AAMOF
Tim " I dont know what AAMOF is "Allman
Peter D
news:1gkepa4.1ykt6be1ncuw4gN%vic...@eijkhout.net...
> Bob Wheatley <master...@Xverizon.net> wrote:
>
> > So, when you see art do you immediately start appreciating the
algorithms,
> > mathematics, and geometric equations, or the art?
>
> Depends. I took my brother -- an engineer if ever there was one -- to
> the Guggenheim. We were looking at the metal sculpture outside. His
> first reaction: "Hm. Sloppy welding".
>
> > There is science in every beautiful thing on earth.
>
> There's also science in every ugly thing. (That reminds me of that Monty
> Python song. Google for "all things dull and ugly")
>
> > No one needs to know the
> > science to know the beauty.
>
> That's how I feel about it. Most of the time knowing the science behind
> something is irrelevant to the esthetic appreciation of it.
I agree. I think Bob sees an appreciation for the science as a removal of
the art oer an appreication for it. Not so.
When look at a Prairie sunset this time of the year I know that the
blood-reds, fire oranges, and purples that seem to go forever are because of
the dust in the air, the seasonal angle of the sun, and the cooler air but I
don't think, "what a wonderful dust, angle, and cool air induced sunset!".
Instead I appreciate it for the beauty that it is. The art if you like.
I forget when, but sometime this summer I caught a rare glimpse of the
Northern Lights. I know that they are caused by solar activity and the
Earth's magnetic field, but what took my breath away was the flowing
curtains of green, white, red, purple, pink, and shades between. Knowing how
the beauty is created takes nothing away from the beauty.
When I first saw the Golden Gate Bridge (rising out of a fog, from an
aircraft), I was struck by the beauty of this man-made structure and how it
looks so "right" in it's location. Engineering/science placed it there and
be functional and safe. But that doesn't exclude the beauty/art of the
object. You say, the engineers did not do their science in the service of
esthetic results, but it didn't need to "look good" to do its job. Most
structures that have a beauty to them do not have to look good to do the job
they were created to do. So I don't think the beauty is a side-effect. I
think we expect engineers and architects to produce something that is both
functional and pleasding to look at.
Terry Rippa
directed to the group in general. I understand that both Phoenix and
Denver stated 80% swing content per your post.
Mike asked me to re-state my question:
It's a "swing dance contest";
You have experienced, trained, qualified swing dance judges;
How much swing content is required during the dance to qualify the dance
as a "swing dance"?
I'm surprised there were no answers. Perhaps the answer is so obvious,
IMHO, that there is no need to answer.
I can't comment personally on the couple that danced because I didn't
see that contest. When I get the videos, I'll check it out immediately.
Judging, and all that it entails, has always been our highest priority
in contesting since the inception of Dallas DANCE. That's a discussion
for another day.
John Wheaton
"Terry Rippa" <Terry...@webtv.net> wrote in message >
> Judging, and all that it entails, has always been our highest priority
> in contesting since the inception of Dallas DANCE. That's a discussion
> for another day.
>
I`ve learned that generalities are easily discussed in this forum, but
getting into areas that are going to require specifics, those kind of
discussions are better left for personal get togethers. I find myself
frequently in chats like that at many events, and I`m always open to them.
Over the years, I have explored these kind of subjects with both Mike, and
Kelly, so they can vouch for me being candid in my conversations.
See ya,
John
JC Dill
wrote:
>WTH is AAMOF
<http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=AAMOF>
Bob Wheatley
> I agree. I think Bob sees an appreciation for the science as a removal of
> the art oer an appreication for it. Not so.
>
Due to misspellings, I'm not sure "exactly" what you're saying here Peter.
But if I am interpreting it correctly, then I disagree.
Science and engineering are completely different elements than art.
All the plastic pocket pencil liners on earth will not help create art.
Artists create art. Engineers engineer. One can be either or both, but
understanding the difference is the key to appreciating both.
As it relates to dance, you can count and/or dissect movement with quantum
physics until you turn blue. Creating movement that others find beauty in is
a gift that cannot be re-created with numbers.
Bob Wheatley
Victor Eijkhout
> Creating movement that others find beauty in is
> a gift that cannot be re-created with numbers.
What does that say abou the UUS?
V.
Bob Wheatley
UUS?
Bob
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Mike Corbett <Xmike...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>Novice level competitors at National Swing dance events are NOT
>beginner dancers and are NOT expected to limit their footwork to the
>rhythms taught with the basic patterns.
Then they should not be mislabeling the competitions as Novice
competitions at National Swing dance events. Look up the word "novice"
in a dictionary. What ever happened to truth in advertising?
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Bob Wheatley <Xmaster...@verizon.net> wrote:
>There is science in every beautiful thing on earth. No one needs to know
>the science to know the beauty.
Only to those ignorant of the beauty in science. I've lost count of how
many famous Renaissance painters were also known as great architects,
engineers and scientists in their own time. Some of Da Vinci's earliests
sketches are engineering drawings of Brunelleschi's construction
equipment for the great Duomo in Florence.
And there are dance teachers who know the importance of some knowledge
of human anatomy. etc.
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Mike Corbett <Xmike...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>I thought it was a great dance that interpreted the music well.
This is not a WCS content criteria. Tango, standard ballroom, jazz,
caberet, ice and ballet dancers can also do great dances interpreting
the music quite well, but I doubt you would consider what they were doing
"swing".
I've seen more than one WCS "Classic" competition routine that looked
to me more like duet jazz dance choreography in a wide slot with a few
token WCS steps inserted, rather than vice versa.
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
I suggest a trip to Rome and Florence. Closer to my area, the Golden Gate
bridge seems to be a favorite subject for some photographers.
Bob Wheatley
Okay.
Several folks emailed me to define UUS.
"Universal Units System".
I am not a Skippy Blair graduate.
But I doubt she claims that learning her numbers will make you a beautiful
dancer.
Bob Wheatley
Bob Wheatley
news:cio0t8$t7v$4...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <RKm2d.4625$g9.3908@trnddc06>,
> Bob Wheatley <Xmaster...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Art can not be engineering.
>
> I suggest a trip to Rome and Florence. Closer to my area, the Golden Gate
> bridge seems to be a favorite subject for some photographers.
>
>
> IMHO. YMMV.
> --
Disagree.
It's a bridge with a romantic history.
I've seen it. Driven across it.
It's not art.
It's a damn bridge.
Bob Wheatley
Jon Leech
DavKopp <dav...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'd say the Golden Gate Bridge was both an egineering feat and a work of art.
Unlike the Bay Bridge.
Jon
__@/
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Bob Wheatley <Xmaster...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Disagree.
>It's a bridge with a romantic history.
>I've seen it. Driven across it.
>It's not art.
You have a right to your opinion, but given the choice between your opinion
on proper subject matter for art photography and that of Ansel Adams...
Richard Maurer
I'm surprised there were no answers. Perhaps the answer
is so obvious, IMHO, that there is no need to answer.
There were some words missing in the original question,
so some did not know if it was a serious question
or a smart-alec rhetorical comment.
One thing I was wondering is:
What if all the figures came other dances,
but the figures were done with West Coast Swing
styling (connection, rise/fall, timing),
would it then be a swing dance?
DavKopp
>>I'd say the Golden Gate Bridge was both an egineering feat and a work of
>art.
>
> Unlike the Bay Bridge.
>
> Jon
My point exactly:-)
To Bob Wheatley: Next time you're in the Bay Area, go to the Berkeley Marina,
and have dinner at sunset looking out towards the Golden Gate. You might
reconsider:-)
David Koppelman
Bob Wheatley
> To Bob Wheatley: Next time you're in the Bay Area, go to the Berkeley
> Marina, and have dinner at sunset looking out towards the Golden Gate.
> You might reconsider:-)
>
Reconsider what?
That the Golden Gate bridge is beautiful, or that it's art?
California is a beautiful state. That does not make it art.
Bob Wheatley
Bob Wheatley
> In article <MPL3d.4193$Co1.1367@trnddc02>,
> Bob Wheatley <Xmaster...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Disagree.
>>It's a bridge with a romantic history.
>>I've seen it. Driven across it.
>>It's not art.
>
> You have a right to your opinion, but given the choice between your
> opinion
> on proper subject matter for art photography and that of Ansel Adams...
>
....He took pictures of rocks and flowers too. So what was his art?
Was it his gift of creating emotion from every day subjects through his
photography, or was anything he took a picture of automatically art?
Bob Wheatley
Bob Wheatley
> Terry Rippa wrote (about swing content):
> I'm surprised there were no answers. Perhaps the answer
> is so obvious, IMHO, that there is no need to answer.
>
>
> There were some words missing in the original question,
> so some did not know if it was a serious question
> or a smart-alec rhetorical comment.
>
> One thing I was wondering is:
> What if all the figures came other dances,
> but the figures were done with West Coast Swing
> styling (connection, rise/fall, timing),
> would it then be a swing dance?
>
No.
The problem becomes that all movements have a certain spatial structure.
That spatial structure is indicative of each dance style.
Of course some elements occur in all dances. Such as turns and spins.
But if you try to put "Open Naturals" in WCS, they're going to be out of
place.
Bob Wheatley
Peter D
No problem.
> >It's a bridge with a romantic history.
Immaterial. It's history does not define it as "art". "Art" is an intrinsic
quality of the object and how others (not including you) judge it's
beauty/art-worthiness.
> >I've seen it. Driven across it.
Immatieral. Whether you drove across it or not, saw it or not, has no effect
on whether it is "art". It might change your appreciation of it, but doesn't
change the object's intrinsic beauty.
> >It's not art.
Then define "art" as you see it because it appears that your definition of
"art" is at odds with most others. That's OK, but you owe people at least a
definition so that we can begin to understand what we each mean when we use
the word "art".
Peter D
discussion is because of the whole art/science thing. :-)
"Richard Maurer" <rcpb1_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:01c49fa9$947e2180$0ec6480c@default...
Stan Graves
> In Phoenix and Denver, we were reminded more
> than once in the contestants meeting at each event that the swing
> content must be 80% or higher.
How "exactly" did they propose to measure that percentage?
If a couple included "cha-cha" content in their dance - that might be
relatively easy to identify and account for. The same would be true
of "foxtrot" content, or "polka" content.
However, where "exactly" is the line between "swing" content and
"jazz" content, or "modern" content, or "general dance-like movement"
content?
"Swing," as a dance, has a structure that is vaguely defined, and
often includes more general dance movement as content within a given
dance/partner combination. Most competative performances are done
with a different set of goals and constraints than a social dance.
The use of "choreography" in the context of a competative performance
tends (IMO) to highlight the general dance movement beyond what is
commonly seen in instructional workshops, or social dancing.
All of these factors make any definitive observation about "exactly"
what constitutes "<insert dance name here>" content impossible (also,
IMO).
--Stan Graves
Bob Wheatley
> Then define "art" as you see it because it appears that your definition of
> "art" is at odds with most others. That's OK, but you owe people at least
> a
> definition so that we can begin to understand what we each mean when we
> use the word "art".
>
Dictionary.com defines art as:
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms,
movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty,
specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
For me, I add that art is something that is created from skill and
inspiration only for arts sake. Not for value or function. Therefore a
plastic surgeon might make someone more beautiful, but it's not art. An
architect can create a beautiful building or other structure, but it's not
art. God created the most beautiful things on earth, yet he's not considered
an artist.
You know what art is. Despite some of RAD's engineers protestations, they
know what art is too. Of course art by it's very nature is subjective, so
I'm not surprised that there would be no consensus on what art is.
On second thought, due to the left and right polarization that has occurred
in this group over the last year or two, I doubt there would be a consensus
on what "is" is.
Bob Wheatley
kelly mcmillan
You are basically repeating what Mike has said. And to that I
respond, if it is "damn near impossible" to judge a dance contest
where it is required to be 80% swing, then why tell us that is what
is required.
But I will give you an example of what I believe is not swing. Anyone
who has seen Robert Cordoba dance in the last 2-3 years has seen
it(and don't tell me champions aren't held to the same rules we are,
it's just an example). He leads the lady in a side pass, ends up with
his back to her and walks foward with her following for 8 beats(at
half time), then he backs up with her walking backwards behing him for
8 beats. Now, though it's entertaining, I can't imagine a single
thing about those 16 beats that is swing. As a matter of fact I can't
imagine any move that ends up with the leaders back to the follower
and he remains that way for any length of time could be swing(which
happened in the dance originally mentioned in this thread). But I'm
sure I'll here if you guys disagree with me. ;-)
Peter D
news:0z04d.5410$PZ4.4785@trnddc06...
> "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
>
> > Then define "art" as you see it because it appears that your definition
of
> > "art" is at odds with most others. That's OK, but you owe people at
least
> > a definition so that we can begin to understand what we each mean
> > when we use the word "art".
> >
>
> Dictionary.com defines art as:
> The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms,
> movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty,
> specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic
medium.
Thanks for the dictionary definition, selectively edited though it is. :-)
Maybe we are actually talking about "beauty" when we say "art". Could be.
> For me, I add that art is something that is created from skill and
> inspiration only for arts sake. Not for value or function.
Lots of art is created for value. Sidewalk paintings in many European
cities, quick portaits and chariciatures, portraits for fees. Many srtists
make a living from their craft, some a decent living. As for function, a
work of art created to grace a corporate building may be for a fee, but if
it has intrinsic architectural portions, it's also functional.
> Therefore a
> plastic surgeon might make someone more beautiful, but it's not art. An
> architect can create a beautiful building or other structure, but it's not
> art. God created the most beautiful things on earth, yet he's not
considered
> an artist.
Many would differ with you. God, The Grand Artist is a common enough theme
in many religions.
> You know what art is. Despite some of RAD's engineers protestations, they
> know what art is too. Of course art by it's very nature is subjective, so
> I'm not surprised that there would be no consensus on what art is.
> On second thought, due to the left and right polarization that has
occurred
> in this group over the last year or two, I doubt there would be a
consensus
> on what "is" is.
Sad that you would (once again) try to polarize the discussion into a
right/left issue. it isn't. Too bad for you and your divisive desires, but
there it is.
Bob Wheatley
> Sad that you would (once again) try to polarize the discussion into a
> right/left issue. it isn't. Too bad for you and your divisive desires, but
> there it is.
>
Facts son.
Facts.
BTW, I thought you "killfiled" me.
Why the resurrection?
Bob Wheatley
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Bob Wheatley <Xmaster...@verizon.net> wrote:
>For me, I add that art is something that is created from skill and
>inspiration only for arts sake. Not for value or function.
Here we disagree. Your above provision would declassify as art almost
all great architecture (which function as buildings, etc.), a large
number of famous paintings and music compositions (commissioned works by
various royal patrons and popes because of their value as gifts, or their
purposed function as religous statements), literature (written for money,
or to make a political or social statement), even some major sculptures
(pediments which helped hold up the roof, etc.).
Art, in part, is value or function (or even engineering) made beautiful
by purpose, talent, skill, inspiration, and often a lot of hard work.
Jerry C.
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Engineers can be artists.
>>>Art can not be engineering.
> "Kel" <kel...@attglobal.net> wrote
>>Au contraire. There ARE cases in which engineering must be applied even
>>to art. For instance, sculptures have been removed from public places
>>when
>>deemed to be mechanically hazardous to the public.
>>
>>One example: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/exhibits/weird/hotcurl.htm
=========================================================
Bob Wheatley wrote:
> No. You confuse the issue.
> An artist created the sculpture.
> An engineer determined it's dispensation.
>
> Separate issues......
>
>
> Bob Wheatley
==========================================================
Actually Bob, art can be engineering. Buckminster Fuller's geodesic
dome is an example. That however is an exception. Pointing out the
exception doesn't invalidate your general point, but merely points out
that it is not universally true. I'm sure that Mike can appreciate that
perspective. :-)
Regarding Kelly's original question, I'm not the person to ask.
Jerry C.
Icono Clast
> You know what art is. Despite some of RAD's engineers protestations, they
> know what art is too. Of course art by it's very nature is subjective, so
> I'm not surprised that there would be no consensus on what art is.
My definition of "art" includes things done so well that that's what
they become. Yes, that can include the design of a building, a
bridge, a streetcar, or bonsai or ad infinitum. My primary thought in
that definition is the objectively ridiculous things we pay to see
circus performers do so well that they elevate those skills to the
level of art.
________________________________________________________________
A San Franciscan who never says "No!" to an invitation to dance!
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
Bob Wheatley
> Here we disagree. Your above provision would declassify as art almost all
> great architecture (which function as buildings, etc.), a large number of
> famous paintings and music compositions >
I don't think functional architecture is art.
It can be beautiful of course, but I don't think it's art.
Do you think all painters, writers, and dancers are artists?
If not, along what lines do you distinguish them?
Bob Wheatley
Bob Gorman
> "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
>
-snip-
> For me, I add that art is something that is created from skill and
> inspiration only for arts sake. Not for value or function. Therefore a
> plastic surgeon might make someone more beautiful, but it's not art. An
> architect can create a beautiful building or other structure, but it's not
> art. God created the most beautiful things on earth, yet he's not considered
> an artist.
-snip-
>
> Bob Wheatley
Artists will tell you all of their pieces start out with a set of
constraining parameters that might include theme, size, functionality,
media, etc... The fact that a piece is functional does not negate the
fact that it is art. A Ming vase? Just a flower holder that's pretty
or a piece of art that can hold flowers? Down in Texas you have some
very talented bike builders named the Martin brothers. There art has
constraining parameters that include: 1. the piece has to have two
wheels. 2. It has to have a baddass motor. 3. it has to be able to be
ridden. Given those constraints, they produce a piece that is at once
art and a motorcycle.
Bob Gorman
Stan Graves
> You are basically repeating what Mike has said.
I assure you that noone is more freaked out by that than I am... ;)
> And to that I
> respond, if it is "damn near impossible" to judge a dance contest
> where it is required to be 80% swing, then why tell us that is what
> is required.
For a varitey of reasons, including the fact that I have never
organized a dance event of any kind, or written the rules, or judged a
contest, I do not think I should be relied on for an explaination of
the required elements in the rules.
That said, I think that the rule exists to imply to the contestants
and judges that any performance within the "swing" divisions should
consist of mostly recognisable "swing" content. I think the rule
exists so that a couple who clearly did not do the dance could be
disqualified (or penalized out of the top finishers).
But, the "80% content" fule is (despite the use of a mathematical
construct in it's definition) a completely subjective rule.
> But I will give you an example of what I believe is not swing.
<snip/>
And?
I would say that there is no "swing" content in any line, lean,
rotational leverage movements, dip, lift, shine (including free
spins), and non-slotted movement. ALL of that content could be just
as easily incorporated into any other dance - so those elements are
all examples of "general dance-like movement" and not something
specific to a given dance.
I agree that it is important that rules are well defined, well
understood, and evenly enforced. I also agree that the "80% content"
rule is none of those things.
--Stan Graves
st...@soundinmotiondj.com
http://www.soundinmotiondj.com
Bob Gorman
> In article <vehhk0lrlosqvrfbe...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Corbett <Xmike...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
> >Novice level competitors at National Swing dance events are NOT
> >beginner dancers and are NOT expected to limit their footwork to the
> >rhythms taught with the basic patterns.
>
> Then they should not be mislabeling the competitions as Novice
> competitions at National Swing dance events. Look up the word "novice"
> in a dictionary. What ever happened to truth in advertising?
>
>
> IMHO. YMMV.
The competitions that are labelled "Novice" are for people that are
novice regarding wcs competitions. Competitions are just a game
dancers play and those in the novice ranks are novice to the game.
They may also be novice dancers.
Bob Gorman
Jerry C.
> "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
>
>
>>Then define "art" as you see it because it appears that your definition of
>>"art" is at odds with most others. That's OK, but you owe people at least
>>a definition so that we can begin to understand what we each mean when we
>>use the word "art".
=====================================================
Bob Wheatley wrote:
> Dictionary.com defines art as:
> The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms,
> movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty,
> specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
>
> For me, I add that art is something that is created from skill and
> inspiration only for arts sake. Not for value or function. Therefore a
> plastic surgeon might make someone more beautiful, but it's not art. An
> architect can create a beautiful building or other structure, but it's not
> art.
Bob, the above is 100% wrong. Architecture is both an art and a
science. The total removal of engineering from architecture will render
it as art and the total removal of art from architecture will render it
as engineering. However neither engineering nor art are ever totally
removed from architecture, so that theoretical possiblility never
happens. Additionally, some engineering can be art as in the many
examples cited, but not all engineering is considered art. Bob, perhaps
you can find refuge in a more limited statement.
> God created the most beautiful things on earth, yet he's not considered
> an artist.
> You know what art is. Despite some of RAD's engineers protestations, they
> know what art is too. Of course art by it's very nature is subjective, so
> I'm not surprised that there would be no consensus on what art is.
It is an exaggeration to say that "art is ... subjective". Instead it
is probably more accurate to say that art appreciation is subjective.
However one extreme example to buttress your claim that art is
subjective might be that guy that puts ribbons on buildings and bridges
and calls it art. Regardless of that example, the subjectiveness
"usually" lies in the art appreciation.
> On second thought, due to the left and right polarization that has occurred
> in this group over the last year or two, I doubt there would be a consensus
> on what "is" is.
That is not analagous to your claim that engineering cannot be art.
Claiming to be 100% right 100% of the time is a difficult premise to
maintain. You simply overstated your case here, much as Dan Rather did
when he highlighted a relevant political fact without verifying the
origin of some of his evidence. :-) (I couldn't resist).
I would hope to return focus to Kelly's original question about the
universality of judging criteria. It is something I've wondered about also.
Jerry Cipriano
Bob Wheatley
> It is an exaggeration to say that "art is ... subjective". Instead it is
> probably more accurate to say that art appreciation is subjective. However
> one extreme example to buttress your claim that art is subjective might be
> that guy that puts ribbons on buildings and bridges and calls it art.
> Regardless of that example, the subjectiveness "usually" lies in the art
> appreciation. >
If it's "appreciation" is subjective, then so is it's definition. Yes?
I've spent a lifetime building structures. Many of them beautiful by most
folks standards. Those that do build are not artists. We're called
"craftsmen".
There is no absolute correct definition here. I am stating my definition.
I tell you what. You get out your protractors, slide rules, and calculators
and you and I will have a little dance contest.
Whaddaya' say ?
>You simply overstated your case here, much as Dan Rather did when he
>highlighted a relevant political fact without verifying the origin of some
>of his evidence. :-) (I couldn't resist).
>
No. I'm stating an honest "opinion".
Dan Rather told a lie and tried to support it with forgeries.
Try to comprehend the difference.
> I would hope to return focus to Kelly's original question about the
> universality of judging criteria. It is something I've wondered about
> also.
>
Like art. There is no "universal" definition.
Each judge brings their own training and life experience and priorities to
the judges table. Head judges can try to mold all that into a few specific
priorities for each contest, but in the end, each judge will make their own
decision based on their own preferences and expectations.
It is as it should be. This way a "plurality" of opinions allow for what is
considered best overall.
If it was math and engineering, there would only be one correct answer.
Bob Wheatley
Swin...@webtv.net
<<Claiming to be 100% right 100% of the time is a difficult premise to
maintain.>
However, Cheerio previously stated:
<<Bob, the above is 100% wrong.>>
My question: are you claiming to be 100% right 100% of the time in
telling Bob he is 100% wrong? Or is it 50% of the time or only 50%
wrong or some other figure you conjured up in your head??????
What a stupid exclamation... and you want to go back and talk about % of
swing! Words are bad enough, please stay away from numbers, even if you
do think you're also a mathematical genius.
There are only two ways of telling the complete truth - anonymously and
posthumously.
Thomas Sowell
Bob Wheatley
news:24140-41...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
> Cheerio claimed:
> <<Claiming to be 100% right 100% of the time is a difficult premise to
> maintain.>
>
> However, Cheerio previously stated:
> <<Bob, the above is 100% wrong.>>
>
> My question: are you claiming to be 100% right 100% of the time in
> telling Bob he is 100% wrong? Or is it 50% of the time or only 50%
> wrong or some other figure you conjured up in your head??????
>
> What a stupid exclamation... and you want to go back and talk about % of
> swing! Words are bad enough, please stay away from numbers, even if you
> do think you're also a mathematical genius.
>
Making sense is not one of Jerry's artistic skills.:>)
Bob Wheatley
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Bob Wheatley <Xmaster...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I don't think functional architecture is art.
>It can be beautiful of course, but I don't think it's art.
You can use words as you want I suppose, but at least one dictionary
defines "architecture" as:
1) The art and science of designing and erecting buildings.
Doesn't say anything about the building having to be non-functional.
>Do you think all painters, writers, and dancers are artists?
It's probably a matter of degree. There is a huge range between Joe's
econo ceiling spray paint service and Michelangelo.
And that's certainly true for dancers as well.
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Bob Wheatley <Xmaster...@verizon.net> wrote:
>If it was math and engineering, there would only be one correct answer.
You obviously need to study some more advanced mathematics and engineering
topics.
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
Bob Gorman <bg7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>r...@mauve.rahul.net (Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote in message
>news:<cinu0f$t7v$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
>> In article <vehhk0lrlosqvrfbe...@4ax.com>,
>> Mike Corbett <Xmike...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>> >Novice level competitors at National Swing dance events are NOT
>> >beginner dancers and are NOT expected to limit their footwork to the
>> >rhythms taught with the basic patterns.
>>
>> Then they should not be mislabeling the competitions as Novice
>> competitions at National Swing dance events. Look up the word "novice"
>> in a dictionary. What ever happened to truth in advertising?
>
>novice regarding wcs competitions.
False. I might be a bad WCS dancer, but I've been doing competitions
for over a half decade (and longer than some advanced competitors have
been WCS dancing), so I'm certainly not new to competition. Nor have
I been doing it the longest even. Maybe calling it a "Bad Dancers"
division would be more truth in advertising for people like me; but
that label certainly doesn't apply to a lot of the very experienced and
talented people in the same division as well. Neither does "Novice".
kelly mcmillan
> "Bob Wheatley" <master...@Xverizon.net> wrote in message
> > inspiration only for arts sake. Not for value or function. Therefore a
> > plastic surgeon might make someone more beautiful, but it's not art. An
> > architect can create a beautiful building or other structure, but it's not
> > art. God created the most beautiful things on earth, yet he's not considered
> > an artist.
>
> -snip-
>
> >
> > Bob Wheatley
>
> Artists will tell you all of their pieces start out with a set of
> constraining parameters that might include theme, size, functionality,
> media, etc... The fact that a piece is functional does not negate the
> fact that it is art. A Ming vase? Just a flower holder that's pretty
> or a piece of art that can hold flowers? Down in Texas you have some
> very talented bike builders named the Martin brothers. There art has
> constraining parameters that include: 1. the piece has to have two
> wheels. 2. It has to have a baddass motor. 3. it has to be able to be
> ridden. Given those constraints, they produce a piece that is at once
> art and a motorcycle.
> Bob Gorman
I'm not sure I agree with that example, I don't consider motorcyles
art, but then I'm not a motorcycle fan. But in my industry there is
the perfect example.
An artist takes a specific piece(not just any piece, but a very
specific piece) of Circasion walnut, and with skill and inspiration
turns that piece of wood into a rifle stock. It is truly a work of
art by all definitions except Bob's which reads as follows "art is
something that is created from skill and inspiration only for arts
sake".
The rifle may never be fired, hanging over the mantle or in a case for
all to admire, but that stock serves the purpose of it's design
extremely well. And if you don't believe wood stock makers are not
artists, then just try working with one. ;-)
Peter D
> "Jerry C." <jer...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote
>
> > It is an exaggeration to say that "art is ... subjective". Instead it
is
> > probably more accurate to say that art appreciation is subjective.
However
> > one extreme example to buttress your claim that art is subjective might
be
> > that guy that puts ribbons on buildings and bridges and calls it art.
> > Regardless of that example, the subjectiveness "usually" lies in the art
> > appreciation. >
> If it's "appreciation" is subjective, then so is it's definition. Yes?
No. "Art" is the thing, "Appreciation" is the sense, feeling, awareness,
value, worth, etc caused by the thing. "Appreciation" and "art" are not
synonymous. Never have been, never will be. Once again you are muddling
words and definitions to suit your original premise.
> I've spent a lifetime building structures. Many of them beautiful by most
> folks standards. Those that do build are not artists. We're called
> "craftsmen".
A "craftsman" may create "art", but not because he is a craftsman, but
because he created art. Not all craftsmen create art eaither (some would
argue that not all artists create art, but that's another matter). The
ability to create "art" is not subject to a specific title or qualification.
In regard to dancing, it is both an art and a science. The "art" is in the
creativity, interpretation, music selection, mood, costumes. The "science"
is in the rhythm, beat, temo, appropriate steps and patterns to fit the
defined purpose of the dance/contest. Why both? "Science" provides a
framework within which "art" can better express itself. Without "art", dance
is a boring repetition of precise steps. Without "science", dance is a
chaotic self-interepretation of what moves you.
Stan Graves
Perhaps 'math' only has once correct answer.
Engineering has an infinite number of 'correct' answers...deciding
which of the answers to use is where the "art of engineering" comes
into play.
--Stan Graves
st...@SoundInMotionDJ.com
http://www.SoundInMotionDJ.com
Victor Eijkhout
> I've spent a lifetime building structures. Many of them beautiful by most
> folks standards. Those that do build are not artists. We're called
> "craftsmen".
I'll start by saying that I can't define the difference between art and
craft, but...
In the case of your structures, and the motorbikes you cited earlier,
the utility aspect comes formost. The onlooker admires it if you make
something that does what it's supposed to, and _in_addition_ it looks
good, but you will never sacrifice the functionality for the looks.
Given the choice between something that works and is ugly, and something
that works and looks good, I'm sure everyone will prefer the latter, and
will admire the person who made it more than the person who made the
former. Still, that doesn't make the second builder an artist. It makes
him a superb craftsman, and probably better at his craft than the first
guy, but not an artist.
To fudge the above, it definitely takes an artistic eye to make
something that looks good. Still, as long as utility comes first, I'd
say that in a balance between art and craft, it's craft.
Earlier you remarked that art comes from skill. So, something accidental
can not be art? That idea is at least a century behind the times. The
dada movement took "found" objects and exhibited them without further
ado. Now you may think that they were playing games, so how about art by
animals? You can buy paintings made by elephants. How about if you let a
baby play on a piano, and you like the result. Play it to someone
without telling what it is, and they might think it' a contemporary
composition, and like it. So where is the skill?
V.
Bob Wheatley
> I'm not sure I agree with that example, I don't consider motorcyles
> art, but then I'm not a motorcycle fan. But in my industry there is
> the perfect example.
>
Nor do I. But being a "fan" should not be a qualifier for something to be
art.
> An artist takes a specific piece(not just any piece, but a very
> specific piece) of Circasion walnut, and with skill and inspiration
> turns that piece of wood into a rifle stock. It is truly a work of
> art by all definitions except Bob's which reads as follows "art is
> something that is created from skill and inspiration only for arts
> sake".
It does meet that standard.
If it was not for arts sake, that same stock construction could have been
accomplished with a pine 2"x4" and a computer driven lathe.
Hand crafted pieces of art that are born of skill and inspiration make the
grade as art to me.
FWIW, my Remington 700 Classic has a synthetic stock.
Very functional. Not art.
Bob Wheatley
Bob Wheatley
<Snipped agreed to elements>
> Earlier you remarked that art comes from skill. So, something accidental
> can not be art? That idea is at least a century behind the times. The
> dada movement took "found" objects and exhibited them without further
> ado. Now you may think that they were playing games, so how about art by
> animals? You can buy paintings made by elephants. How about if you let a
> baby play on a piano, and you like the result. Play it to someone
> without telling what it is, and they might think it' a contemporary
> composition, and like it. So where is the skill?
>
> V.
I think everyone will define what they consider art to be. For me, cars
motorcycles, and buildings do not make the grade.
Neither does the dancer that can cite and execute every scientific and/or
physical fact about dancing.
On the other end of the spectrum, away from engineered and replicated items
are the one's that are by chance. I would have to take these on a case by
case basis.
In your two examples above, I don't think either is art.
It's elephant poop and noise.:>)
I honestly cannot think of anything right off the top of my head that does
not require skill that I would consider art.
I know I have seen folks sell body paintings made by beautiful women rolling
around on a canvas in the nude with multiple colored paints.
I don't see these kinds of things as art either. Nor are the folks selling
it artists. They are opportunists.
Bob Wheatley
Mike Corbett
wrote:
Except your response is an exaggeration. I never said it was even
difficult to judge a dance contest where 80% swing was required. At
least it's not any more difficult BECAUSE OF the swing content rules.
Judging the contest is routine enough. What's "impossible" is to
consistently determine and calculate the percentage of swing content.
The myriad of other criteria used to "judge a dance contest" are
considered and the results determined.
Did you think the swing content was the ONLY criteria??
>
>But I will give you an example of what I believe is not swing. Anyone
>who has seen Robert Cordoba dance in the last 2-3 years has seen
>it(and don't tell me champions aren't held to the same rules we are,
>it's just an example). He leads the lady in a side pass, ends up with
>his back to her and walks foward with her following for 8 beats(at
>half time), then he backs up with her walking backwards behing him for
>8 beats. Now, though it's entertaining, I can't imagine a single
>thing about those 16 beats that is swing. As a matter of fact I can't
>imagine any move that ends up with the leaders back to the follower
>and he remains that way for any length of time could be swing(which
>happened in the dance originally mentioned in this thread). But I'm
>sure I'll here if you guys disagree with me. ;-)
Sounds like an extended push pattern with the leader's orientation and
likely footwork matching the followers, using double rhythm timing.
What non-swing dance did you identify.
Mike Corbett - Carrollton, TX
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that
take our breath away. George Carlin
Mike Corbett
H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote:
>In article <b67521d1.04092...@posting.google.com>,
>Bob Gorman <bg7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>r...@mauve.rahul.net (Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote in message
>>news:<cinu0f$t7v$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
>>> In article <vehhk0lrlosqvrfbe...@4ax.com>,
>>> Mike Corbett <Xmike...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>>> >Novice level competitors at National Swing dance events are NOT
>>> >beginner dancers and are NOT expected to limit their footwork to the
>>> >rhythms taught with the basic patterns.
>>>
>>> Then they should not be mislabeling the competitions as Novice
>>> competitions at National Swing dance events. Look up the word "novice"
>>> in a dictionary. What ever happened to truth in advertising?
>>
>>The competitions that are labelled "Novice" are for people that are
>>novice regarding wcs competitions.
>
>False. I might be a bad WCS dancer, but I've been doing competitions
>for over a half decade (and longer than some advanced competitors have
>been WCS dancing), so I'm certainly not new to competition. Nor have
>I been doing it the longest even. Maybe calling it a "Bad Dancers"
>division would be more truth in advertising for people like me; but
>that label certainly doesn't apply to a lot of the very experienced and
>talented people in the same division as well. Neither does "Novice".
I would say the competitions are labeled "Novice" because the people
placing in them or dancing at the top level of the contests are
"Novices" at doing well in competition at the National level. Once
they get a few points worth of experience at successful competition
they move to "Intermediate" levels of competition.
Where Novice is the lowest level of competition in WCS National
events, the dance level ranges from "bad" to "pretty darn good".
Mike Corbett
H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote:
>In article <9v5fk01iu4kbtugj5...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Corbett <Xmike...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>>I thought it was a great dance that interpreted the music well.
>
>This is not a WCS content criteria. Tango, standard ballroom, jazz,
>caberet, ice and ballet dancers can also do great dances interpreting
>the music quite well, but I doubt you would consider what they were doing
>"swing".
>
>I've seen more than one WCS "Classic" competition routine that looked
>to me more like duet jazz dance choreography in a wide slot with a few
>token WCS steps inserted, rather than vice versa.
Context foul, Ron. Try quoting the paragraph.
Stan Graves
> do think you're also a mathematical genius.
Good advice. All the mathematical geniuses that I know would never
resort to things as clunky as 'numbers' in order to make a point.
kelly mcmillan
>
> Very functional. Not art.
>
>
> Bob Wheatley
And if you bought it through the custom shop, I made it.
Bob Wheatley
news:c1873dad.0409...@posting.google.com...
Cool.
I don't know how they are to work for, but they make the finest production
bolt action on planet earth.:>)
Bob Wheatley
Bob Wheatley
"Stan Graves" <soundin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d6c6fc3.04092...@posting.google.com...
> Swin...@webtv.net wrote in message
> news:<24140-41...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>...
>> please stay away from numbers, even if you
>> do think you're also a mathematical genius.
>
> Good advice. All the mathematical geniuses that I know would never
> resort to things as clunky as 'numbers' in order to make a point.
>
> --Stan Graves
If they do, I'm sure the numbers would at least add up.:>)
Bob Wheatley