There are two art forms that have always baffled me.
The first is dance. Not the art itself, but the recording of it. Ballet in particular.
In music, a system was developed (however unnecessarily complex, and if invented today could be done simpler) of writing down music so that it could be duplicated by others in exactly the same way as originally composed.
However, I always wondered how dancers write down their complicated moves. Can you imagine having to write down where each arm and leg is at any given time, what it is doing and, in case of a pas de deux, where the four arms and four legs are and what they are doing? And the whirls and swirls as well. I found out that, lo and behold, there is not one system. There have been attempts to develop systems, some based on the music stave where the top line is the head, then the shoulders, waist, knees and the feet. Many ballet companies have people who take dance notation, writing down the moves in this system, but it would appear there are as many systems as there are choreographers.
Yet classical ballet works, such as Giselle and The Dying Swan have survived through lore and from passing the baton from one dance group to another.
Nowadays, there are videos made but even those are not considered accurate at all time. While being filmed, the dancers could be doing things wrong at the time of recording.
It is not uncommon for modern choreographers to follow their work and travel to where their work is being performed to ensure accuracy.
To believe in lore is about the same as believing in the game “telephone” we played as kids, where you start with a word at the beginning of a line, only to find what comes at the end of the line is something entirely different.
The second art form I wonder about is fashion. Yes, fashion.
There is a debate over whether or not it is an art form. Since there are museums that display fashion, I must assume those museums consider it an art form.
For years I did not understand that while watching strange looking skinny females walking on the catwalk that the designer could be serious. Surely some of these concoctions could not possibly be worn anywhere. Or how could you even sit down in some of these?
It also seems that one designer outdoes another by designing more and more ludicrous looking outfits. Here is a description of ridiculous things I found on the Internet:
A pile of lumber nailed together in front of a man’s head; how about some trees hanging from your dress; blue lips, striped hair, toothpicks through parts of the face; even the curtain rod made famous by Carol Burnett in her sketch of Scarlet O’Hara; or a pair of gloves at the tip of the shoes.
But what always strikes me most is how the models are absolutely incapable of, or not allowed to smile.
Wow – you would think that wearing the clothes they are wearing would at least make them smile a little, but no, it is all very serious. However, after my realization late in life that these fashion shows are not about wearable fashions but are an artistic expression, these things all made sense.
Just as modern day paintings may not make sense, the same goes for these designs. An expression of modern art displayed by live people. That made me change my mind about these fashion shows and I now view them with interest, rather than a look of horror that said, “You want me to wear that?”
So maybe next time you see a classical ballet you may see it as a difficult recordable art form. And when it comes to those artsy fashion shows, don’t think of it as wearable but try looking at it as an art form. It will make a huge difference.
Anyone with art information may contact Carla Krens at 250-836-4705, or carlakrens@telus.net.