Dance, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is "to move rhythmically to music, typically following a set sequence of steps". This means if I open and close my mouth, that is dance. If I clap my hands, that is dance, if I nod my head that is dance, if I walk that is dance. Umm... really ? What if I feel dead bored while doing these movements ? This definition does not definitely capture the 'art' in dance. So we'll have to look further. Where do we start ? Maybe we need to look at the history of dance to know how dance started and how it evolved over time to actually understand what exactly is dance.
Archeology delivers traces of dance from prehistoric times starting from 3300 BC. Movements were done for celebration and social interaction in many civilisations. Movements were also used as a method of healing in cultures like Brazilian rainforest to the Kalahari Desert. Movements were also performed in order to tell myths and passing on stories down from generation to generation before the written languages came into production. These movements were called dance but the definition was still fuzzy until 15th and 16th centuries when classical dances came into picture in India and Europe. At that time it became easier to define what is dance and what is not dance. In the West, dance was almost synonymous with classical ballet. In fact the word 'ballet' comes from the Greek word 'ballizo', which means 'to dance, to jump about'. In India, the scene was very different. During the reign of Mughals, dance was only performed in the courtrooms and the status of dance fell down to 'nautch', an unethical sensuous thing of courtesans and later during British rule, it was linked with prostitution and being overtly sexual.
Then times changd and early 20th century brought a big change to the definition of dance. There was an explosion of new thinking and exploration and artists began to appreciate the qualities of the individual, the expression and the emotions. Modern dance began to grow and there was a lot of freedom in what people considered art of movement. Isadora Duncan was among the first artists who challenged the rigid ballet technique and started moving away towards what she perceived as natural movement. To restore dance to a high art form instead of entertainment, she sought the connection between emotions and movement: “I spent long days and nights in the studio seeking that dance which might be the divine expression of the human spirit through the medium of the body’s movement.” [My Life, p. 75]. Each of the modern artists in their own way rebelled against the superficiality of classical ballet and the lack of creativity in show-dancing. They simplified stage decor, costumes (feet was bared) and all movements were inspired by freedom of expression rather than a set technique. This really expanded the range of dance but at the same time made it more complicated to define what is dance and what is not dance. The line had started becoming thinner.
So can we say that classical and modern dances put together is dance ? Actually not. Because parallel to these Western dances, there is another culture of dance termed as 'ethnic dance' or folk dance. As the black people were not allowed to be part of ballet groups, they created tap and jazz dancing which is influenced by African folk dances. Unlike ballet, they stress on parallel feet, jerky movements, hip-movements, isolations and sharp transitions in contrast of the softness in ballet. This not only challenged the definition of dance but also broadened it. In fact in 1935, a young Englishman Geoffrey Gorer, travelled through these parts and noted that "It is very difficult for Europeans to understand the place dancing takes in Negro lives. They dance for joy and they dance for grief; they dance for love and hate; they dance for prosperity and to avert calamity; they dance for religion and to pass the time." Similarity in Indian Hindus the dance forms like Kathakali were inspired by a completely different school of thought which was to please the God. The dancers wore elaborate costumes, masks, often their face was painted to give effect of super humans and interpreters of Gods. Under the Muslim religion only one sect , the Sufis, followed a dance rite as a form of worship. The monks would dress in long white robes and high conical hats and slowly revolve with their right hand extended and left palm facing downwards. In Japan, there is masked lion dance, Chinese like the opera, in Spain, dance includes fiery tamping of high heels, the swirl of ruffled skirts and the chatter of castanets. And this goes on for every country, religion, race. Dance can actually speak for an entire community.
This further complicates the question as to what is dance ? Can we say that the various classical forms, modern dance and all the folk dances across the world put together is 'dance' ? And if that's true can we say that everything else is not dance ? Not really. Because in doing so we are stopping the further evolution of dance and we are forgetting that there is something common in all these movement forms that actually make them to be called as dance. That is the pulse we need to find. Is it just the rhythmic movement or is it something to do with sequence of steps or is it the musicality ? Lets take an example: If I am doing some physiotherapy exercise of say, bending my leg (with some music in the background), some people may argue that this should be called dance because it is a sequence of steps being performed musically. But if somebody asks me what am I doing, I would say "I am doing this exercise", and not that "I am dancing" even though I'm making rhythmic movements with my body. So the difference lies in my intention, in my thinking, in the way I feel when I do this movement. Looks like it is dance when the dancer 'intends' to dance and knows that he or she is dancing and gets a certain artistic satisfaction from it. The movement really does not matter and neither does the music or rhythm. Sometimes I can dance just by using facial expressions and not move at all.
Well, then where are we ? Should we just leave it at 'anything can be dance' ? This brings us to the question of what is not dance. Just like 'beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder', dance also lies in the eyes of the beholder. Just like 'what is dance' depends on how I feel when I am doing the dance, 'what is not dance' depends how a person feels when they see a piece and how well it connects with their emotions. Simplistically, we can say that it should be aesthetically appealing but then one can argue that the artist's prime motivation need not be the pursuit of the aesthetic. This is an endless debate with high levels of subjectivity. What is dance for me may not be dance for you and so on. It all depends on one's experiences, values and sensibility.
Summary wise, I can say that the definition of dance has come a long way from the prehistoric movements done for communication, to rigid classical techniques performed in courtrooms and temples, to modern dance inspired by freedom of expression and natural movement, to folk dances where movements are inspired by local culture and traditions. The definition is almost fluid and it would be interesting to see where it goes next and what all it encapsulates. But at any single given time, dance is the 'art of movement' and the debate will continue as to what level of aesthetic satisfaction, if any, is required for a movement to be termed as 'dance'.
