Using Inspiration Creatively

This isnt even a conversation.

Dancers use the same vocabulary. The same set of techniques: Tondue, Degaje, Plie...ok, i cant spell in french, but you get my point.

Choreographers use those terms when building dance peices.

There is no one who calls into question whether dancing is an art form.

And even to dance in a style, jazz, tap, contemporary, classical ballet, hip hop

does not bring into question the legitimacy of their dance, but only from whom they get their inspiration.


No go practice!

This is a conversation.

Some dancers use the same vocabulary. Like ballet dancers for example, a b-boy would never use the terms you say. And quite frankly anything a b-boy does couldn't really be described as a plie.

Choreographers do use those terms, if they are building a ballet piece, but they also use a far bigger selection of other words, completely unique and descriptive to theat peice, as well as no words, for showing and moving the dancers. To build a routine with just the standard ballet terms would be as cookie cutter as we are talking about. Basically it'll be a demonstration, a view into the practise that ballet dancers do.

People do actually. Dancing is the youngest of all the classical artforms. So before that you can bet it was debated over.

So I guess your argument is that you can make art out of building blocks that everyone uses, and hence, because dance is an artform, this status can be ascribed to spinning, because people learn standard building blocks.

But your accertions are poor:

That dance has a vocabulary of basic terms, (like jump and squat) is poor, since most dance doesn't use those terms and those that do, use them as a base, not as high level terms.

That dance is an art, which has been debated.

That the analogy holds strongly enough to ascrib the title of art onto spinning.

That learning to be a cookie cutter spinner is somehow analogous to either learning the basic terms of ballet or of learning the basics of ballet.

For instance, can can dancers clearly know what they are doing is not art. As do standard music video backing dancers. a

and further, copying a move from someone is one thing, copying a body position or movement is another, and copying a section of their spinning and or routine is yet another.

Are you really going to sit there and argue that dance is not art, meg?

Theater, dance, music, circus, these are by definition performance ARTS.

If a particular style, or set of techniques, or video inspires someone to delve deeper into any artform its a good thing, not a bad thing.

Technique is technique. Even if the technique is a signature pose, or sequence. Stealing a whole act, if its a professional act is one thing, but going through a specific technical display is playing the same scale or mode(yeah, i switched from dance to music, what!) Whether it comes from this video or that person, doesnt matter. People all start somewhere, if they see a video and copy it, good!

I could very easily yes. Just like most art is not art. Are you going to argue that all kids pictures are art just because they are made with traditional art materials and techniques?

Art has no definition. And most of traditional circus I would argue is not art. Just as I would argue that a lot of obvious candidates in music and theatre and dance aren't art either.

Technique is not a pose or a sequence. A technique is a technique, and you don't learn or need many in spinning.

A technical display / scale is not art, and it's not usually what people put on video or copy or get taught at the start and understand that they need to learn.

And I still wouldn't say that copying videos is a good thing. It's definately a thing thou. You can do it if you like but I wouldn't recommend it.

yes, childrens pictures are art! you can debate the quality of the art all you want, but putting a mark on a peice of paper is art.

a technical display, or scale, is the practice of an art form, and hence, art.


There is technique to posing, there is technique to arranging choreography. There is no "A technique," there is only technique.

you dont need a lot of technique for anything, but you have the option of delving into it.

And why do you suppose circus arts are called circus arts.

oh wow - meg's claiming "dance is not an art"... *popcorn and a soda anyone? - or more for tea and cookies?* I'm not surprised..

"Just like most art is not art."... "Art has no definition. And most of traditional circus I would argue is not art. Just as I would argue that a lot of obvious candidates in music and theatre and dance aren't art either."...

Whilst the latter is your (entitled and honored, thoughdefinitelynotagreedwith) opinion, the former is outright ... wrong:





already two definitions I can relate to...

Oh yeah, who would be surprised that firetom would interrupt this discussion to argue with me? I'm not going to reply to you. Sad times for the missing ignore option.

Childrens paintings are not art. They can be art with the appropriate context. Just like writing a message to your friend in class isn't art. Even thou it's marks onna paper. It can be art, but as it is, it isn't.

Just cos it's called martial arts, doesn't mean punching someone is an artwork.

There are about 3 techniques in spinning I think. Keeping timing, isolation, doing different things with your hands, other than that... lesser used techniques.

Why do I suppose it's called circus arts? So if I called a rose a spade then I could totally use it to dig a hole? What kind of argument is that? Some of circus skills you can totally use to make art, mostly however they aren't used for that purpose... they are used for entertainment. There is a big difference.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines art (Noun) as:

1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
2 a : a branch of learning
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced


All of which apply to spinning, and circus, and a child making marks on paper.

Further more,
Fine Art (Noun)

is defined as

1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural b : objects of fine art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill

And I contest that if the term object can refer to music, ie, the performance of a song, that it can also be applied to circus in the performance of an act, or dance as the performance of a dance.


Now Meg, what was it you were saying?

At first I was like, hey MCP, I totally disagree with you, but I thought about it and I dont concider my spinning art. I play guitar and I dont really concider what I do with that as art either. I do concider some martial arts as 'art' and I concider climbing as an art.

But Im interested to hear on what you concider to BE art, not just what you think art is not. cause when I apply this way of thinking then I would say that 90% of Art that I come across really isnt art then. and that would mean that millions of artists are living a lie.

for example take Beethoven. I would concider his music to be art, but it still follows clearly defined technique, rules and patterns. Which is why it can be played, copied and repeated by musicians today. When Hendrix ripps out a solo in the midle of songs. Its not truly spontanious inspiration. Its actually usually a a variation of a scale progression that you can again break down to technique and copy.

people make a lot of money making copies of famous artwork by copying the original artists technique. In fact I cant think of ANY art that cannot be broken down to technique, or in the case of music - scales and progressions.

If I needed to look up a definition of art in a dictionary, I would understand that I really didn't know what art was.

It's like yours saying you don't know what art is, and yet you want to argue with me about it?

Does someone doing a triple on the flying trapeze make you cry, make you feel more deeply what it is to be human, make you wonder about life and it's meaning...? well probably if you knew the difficulty and the story behind the really difficult tricks... but the act itself, it's done and then you think no more of it. Like a football game, you don't watch a football game and hate it and then later come back, watch it again and decide it was amazing. It's entertainment, you just watch it once. It's a technical display, a musician playing a particularly hard scale. It's not art, unless it's in a different context.

You can say that some 15 year old doing the goth 2step in a club is equal to a 45 minute dance production by a national ballet company because they are both 'art'. But I wouldn't and I wouldn't see what that would get you.

Fine art can't be contested, it's like a technical term, it has a defined meaning, fine art applies to the fine arts, that of painting sculpture and drawing and whatnot. Classical arts are different again. You don't study music when you study fine art. If you want to get universities and art historians to change the term, you can.

Otherwise you are arguing with me, I can't be bothered to go summarise my statements again just to make it easier on you. Since I have to clarify yours usually as well.

And Im not trying to convince you that what I think is art is art, I am trying to open you to the possibility that what you think is art may differ from what someone else things is art.

So many people disagree with you, that the dictionary contradicts you.

Just because things that I think are beautiful dont make me want to go all emo and slit my wrists onto a canvas doesnt mean I appreciate it any less. Sure, art can evoke emotions, but not all art does, look at andy worhol.

meg, you're just wrong.

This conversation makes me smile. Im not sure if Meg is playing devil's advocate or is simply in love with being evil. Either way though I have to agree somewhat on her side.

Art should tell a truth about the human condition (aesthetic). The technique used to describe that truth, be it motion, paint, sound or whatever, is only the language used to help describe that aesthetic.

If a child should draw a picture of a sun and tree, they are just learning to use the language of symbols to talk visually. Their art speaks of their attempts to define the world they see around them. That is truth in a way, though it may be on a simplistic level. Another child draws themself with a great distance between them and another to describe their inner loneliness over having lost a friend. An intangible concept made concrete.

There was an exhibition put on back in the 80s about "bad" art. Needless to say, no one remembers it because it really wasn't worth remembering, just like no one remembers what the warm-up of an orchestra sounded like.

Technique, whether skilled or not, is simply a string of letters and words jumbled together. To speak of art as being good or bad; to give it a label depends on how successful a person was at using their given tool to convey a truth: emotion, relation, empathy, etc to any given audience.

Speaking of Andy Warhol, he spoke in truths. Not emotion, but in attacking the concept that art had to be separate from the commercial reality that surrounds people. If Campbell's soup is a part of the everyday, it is a part of our reality and therefore a part of the truth of who we are. Today he would have printed ipods and laptops. And he would have done it on Photoshop and caused argument and debate to spawn. He would have induced emotion by challenging what we believe should and should not be, in the world of art.

Though I will say that anyone who attempts that today stands a good chance of becoming dismissed as a pale copy of an original idea. Irony, no?

tank:

1) Meg is NEVER wrong



you may consider that

2) Meg can't dance, thus another reason why
3) dance can not be art, and as
4) Meg is never wrong,
5) everybody else must be wrong - most certainly including me and obviously excluding KASKADE...

I think I need a bag of chips and a drink,
sorry...

In my opinion if you just train a particular thing and maybe you good in it its skill or similar.
If you put this into a different context, e.g. a big performance with background, making a huge setting, choreographies etc., than its becoming art. if you expressing something, people get an idea....thats art... the thing about this discussion is the the term art, and perception of it it really depending on the individual.

Art can be persistent or transient... there are no rules

there are much more things, but i have to work now...

maybe one... in germany there is an insurense for artist really good thing...there is listed what counts as an artist... actor in a film not, except is an star...
theater yeah, hiphop trainee no, capoeira yes....

you see what i wanna say?

chris

I don't believe that the definition of art depends on the setting...

But I side you that it is all about "expression". There are no rules ... but much more to it... Art can (and sometimes has to be) ridiculous, without purpose, timeless or perishing quickly, like this one:



If someone doubts that dance is art, I truly feel that this person is in a pitiable state of existence, as s/he has never experienced the sweetness that witnessing or practicing dance can have on the mind...



To me t's about art - and can not be explained but has to be experienced...

This is an opinion based topic with massive amounts of subjectivity!

Technique is not art

For me its kinda like there are 26 letters in the alphabet, but just listing any 5 of them doesn't make a word.

or perhaps more aptly, opening a dictionary to a random page and reading words isn't going to make a sentence (it could be Art if you are making some kind of post modern point but thats another bag of worms), but those words may be arranged artfully and be used to produce something that could be a sentence, or arranged more delicately and be used to make a poem.

Just as exercises in a ballet class are not Art, yes they are part of an artform, but that doesn't make them art. The techniques must be used in a sequence to express something or tell a story/ portray the aesthetics that the choreographer intends. Then it can be called art.

Picasso said "What do you think an artist is? A fool who has only eyes if he's a painter, only ears if he's a musician, or a lyre at every level of his heart if he's a poet, or even nothing but muscles if he's a boxer? On the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly alive to the heart-rending, fiery or happy events of the world, molding himself wholly in their image. How would it be possible for him to take no interest in other men, and with cool indifference detach himself from the life which they bring you so lavishly? No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war for attack and defense against the enemy."

What resonates with me is 'art is not to decorate apartments'
I feel this totally applies to spinning, if we are just making pretty circles and fancy lines we are not artists, we are demonstrating skill and technical aptitude much like a gymnast does during a routine.

The skills and techniques employed by the gymnast can be used to create art, and is done often in a setting of circus art/ physical theater

Art says something, or at least seeks to say something. that doesn't mean it makes sense to everyone or is fully digestible. but it is not just a demonstration of skill.

oh and on the topic of cookie cutter spinners another Picasso quote
"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal. "

I would not call what I do art, although I do think it is an artform.

that's the problem with most artists (I know) ... they adore other people's work but got troubles to identify their own genius...

a friend of mine has a story.

His wife's grandfather was a famous for his beautiful pottery and had been so for over 30 years.

When they first met my friend said to his grandfather in law,
"it must be amazing being able to live your art"

To which the potter replied
"what art? this is my work! if other people wish to see it as art it is up to them. I just do my work."

Tankboy: Well seems like many people don't think I'm wrong.

I'm glad thou that you have 'appeal to authority' as one of your arguments. It's a shame everyone doesn't respect dictionaries as much as you do. There would be like no arguments then. We could all just say: this is what this is: boom done.

I don't think you know anything about what I think is art. Art can be anything, art can be someone drilling a hole in a piece of wood badly, or endlessly repeating a juggling trick until they learn a bad habit. But at the same time it's not. It usually takes something else to make it art, even if that thing is only the observer, or an artist to put the thing into a context that makes it art.

I think all art does evoke emotions, because all decisions are based on emotions. Andy Warhol said stuff about the art world, just as Duchamp did. Plus you seem to be contradicting your earlier argument, that what I think is art can differ what other people think is art, so can't Warhols art be not art to you but art to somebody else?

I could be more acerbic at this point, but I'm a bit tired.

Squid: Evil is fun sometimes. Look at nature. It loves it. Our life is based on killing other things. Gotta love nature.

Squid also makes very good points. Which I agree with.

Firetom writes something I didn't read fully due it looking like basic Meg trolling.

Flamba wrote something that seems like a good point already made, but it's hard to tell with the English.

I heard that an eccentric art collector bought an artists entire life and works the other day. He set up cameras in his studio and get all the works and tapes and everything. So you never really know what is or isn't gonna be art in the end. But it's a good example of what I generally think: Art = Life.

DaG wrote some good stuff too. That picasso quote is especially interesting. "It is an instrument of war for attack and defense against the enemy." Whhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa. Good quote.

"Bad artists copy, Good artists steal." This is true to a point. I think you have to get to the very bottom of what you are copying in oder to steal it thou... They do say there are no new ideas under the sun, and so really your going to have to steal em aren't you? But they're lying, there are new ideas. They're only saying that to you to make you feel better about not being creative enough to find them.

I love you a little bit now Dag. Oops, did I say that out loud?

On the topic of inspiration and cookie cutter spinners.... I think it's too much idol worship...

Make spinning that doesn't look like anyone else's spinning. Having someone say: Oh wow, you really look like G when you spin, it's not a compliment, it's a critique. That's the mindset people should have... if you ask me.

It is amazing to be able to live your art thou. AMAZING. Better if you notice you are doing it thou.