Participation and dance

[tippy]

The first discussion point explores 'participation vs observation'.

It is suggested that the joy, creativity and potential of dance is
found in the 'doing' – that it is the participation in corporeal/
embodied activity – i.e. activity that requires all the senses, that
produces the experiences of dance. At its core dance is about felt
experience through activity.

“Four Legs” explores the idea that the potential for new experience,
to feel and sense new experiences exists in our everyday lives. In
activities like dog walking our senses are alert – we are actively
stumbling into new sensations that are at the heart of creative
activity.

This is where the dogs come in and where due to their presence, dog
walking becomes dance. With the addition of a dog – as a spontaneous
and instinctive influence walking becomes increasingly unpredictable.
Or perhaps the experience becomes more lively – an alert and playful
dog requires attention. Participation in the unruly activity of dog
walking brings new sensations and feelings – that arrive through the
'doing' of the walk. Crucially too, these experiences are unrestrained
– they are not tied to a rational or conscious ordering – they come
and go as small(or large) interruptions. Is it this appearance of
unexpected sensation that is the creative potential of dog walking?

Describing dance in this way is quite a shift from how many would
imagine dance. Instead of making steps and music the priority - here
movement or action of any sort - that involves the body fully is
thought of as dance. The creative potential that resides in 'doing' is
the exciting thing - and this version of dance extends the potential
it carries to everyone.

To summarize - by participating we are exposed to an element of
unpredictability that can generate new experience - but crucially no
attempt is made to order or chorograph this experience - to recreate
it or communicate it with someone else. It is in the constant
exposure to the new experience that the potential lies. This is also
an attempt to sidestep the difficulties of 'visual' experience - of
watching or observing - visual experience is so familiar how can one
not to default to a 'normal' ordering or structuring of this
information?

What do you think?