A Short Treatise on the Three Main Schools of Modern Dance
1. The West
Keith Hennessy, Crotch
“Experimental [homo] Art, Capitalist Critique, and Mystical Inquiry”
There is a YouTube video at the above link which becomes really interesting at about 2:40.
2. The immunized West in the East
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, The Nutcracker
Once-Experimental [traditional] Art, Critique of Evil, and Mystical Inquiry
Moscow Ballet Performance, 2010
3. Islam
Ali, Ashura
Traditional Art, Critique of Rationalism, and Mystical Inquiry
Video: Festival of whipping and self-flagellation
There are two examples of cultures gone insane here. The average under-fifty Westerner would not know which two those are.
13 comments:
The middle one is beautiful, the other two are clear cases of being created by syphilitic degenerates.
Sadly though, Mr.Seiyo's observations are spot on. The young(under 50 crowd) unless they've been exposed to classic art and dance prior to college, would accept the first and last as valid and intelligent expressions of dance, much like the bizarre gymnastics that passes for dance on "Dancing with the Stars".
The tolerance of these Lovecraftian horrors can be directly laid at the corrosive feet of the post-modern/Marxist mentality that permeates the humanities department in our universities. See Tom Wolfe's books: "The Painted Word" and
"From Bauhaus to our House" for a analysis of how this came about.
Another relevant book include:
"Higher Superstition" by Gross and Levitt. That details the assault by post-modernists, feminists and eco-nuts to marginalize science and control it for their own ends.
In short the assault on beauty is just part of a larger effort to dismantle all the fruits of the Enlightenment and Western Civilization in general.
I'm happy to say that my daughter is a ballerina and that my son can tolerate it when necessary!
Technically, "Modern" dance is a distinct style not represented here. But since it is (like most of the other "modern" art forms) now less modern and more outdated, that is a technical quibble that perhaps says more about the pitfalls of attaching the term "modern" to a particular historical period than it does about the validity of referring to contemporary forms of an art as modern even though "modern" forms of the art are generally not very contemporary.
Every art form suffers from a certain contradiction inherent in activities that are done by humans for any human audience. On the one hand, there has to be a reason for the artists to be the artists, and on the other, a reason for the audience to be the audience. These reasons cannot be easily made interchangeable without breaking down the boundaries that make art distinct from general social interaction.
Generally, the "optimal" solution to this is that the artist is technically proficient in the art form, while the audience is master of the subject matter. Supreme technical excellence may attract a certain amount of the audience, but most people will prefer art that is somewhat better than they could accomplish themselves but speaks directly to their own desires.
Of course, the "cult of celebrity" has led to the rise of artists that create art on the subject of "anybody can be a celebrity for any reason or none at all". This popular theme of "famous for being famous" plays into a concupiscent desire to be desired, yet requires ultimate technical excellence as displayed by its successful practitioners, not one of whom is really an average Joe/Jane (usually Jane) elevated to sudden fame by chance and maintaining that position by virtue of being famous.
Now that is an art form that reflects on a deeply neurotic and fundamentally dissatisfied audience. But it is not the subject of the current discussion.
Basically, what we see here is one example of an art that takes as its subject the values and beauty of Western Civilization (appreciation for the technical excellence of artists as distinct from the audience is only one of those values, I think we've all enjoyed heartwarming performances by those with little technical skill but much love of other important values of the West).
And we see examples of art that takes hatred and contempt for Western Civilization as their theme. The problem isn't that the artists aren't any good (though I would tend to estimate their technical excellence as being somewhat less), but that the subject is appealing only to those motivated by hatred and contempt of Western Civilization.
Now, whether indulging in this kind of hatred of another culture that you perceive to be inimical to your own is insane is a question of definitions. I've had the discussion elsewhere and couldn't even convince people that fomenting hatred of cultures incompatible with your own is not required for moral/intellectual integrity. I'd go as far as asserting that indulging in that kind of hatred isn't reasonable, but there are those that have argued.
On the other hand, I do believe that the cultures antithetical to Western Civilization have made a huge error, and that their hatred is a significant part of that error.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
The choice of "immunized West in the East" deserves elaboration. Perhaps the key to the redemption of the West will come from the way Eastern Christendom manages to recover from body-snatcher infestation. And perhaps that is why the Western snatchers are so obsessed with snuffing the "East" out...
@Gray Falcon,
You are right, but sometimes avoiding elaboration raises questions in the reader's mind, and that's the purpose. For the same reason a writer might use the term "Modern Dance" for something that per common knowledge is not modern dance (alluding here to Chiu's comment).
The elaboration of what I mean by "Immunized West in the East" has taken the better part of a 25,000-word essay the 4th part of which was recently published on these pages. Obviously, I could not repeat the rationale here. But I'll give you a hint taken from Part 5 that I am working on:
The most recent bridge completed in Slovakia was named after Chuck Norris. Chuck’s home country can’t rename itself fast enough after MLK, Cesar Chavez, and soon enough another mlk, Harvey Milk. And of course, within a few years, The One We Have Been Waiting For.
Takuan Seiyo
Naming anything capable of bringing people together through raw physical strength "Chuck Norris" is technically redundant terminology.
@Chu
It has nothing to do with raw strenght. If there were a connection, it would have been with technique acquired through discipine, what the Japanese call waza and I am sure the Chinese have an even earlier word for. But it has to do with masculinity, with embodying traditional Western hero values, standing up alone to the bad guys. Same thing as John Wayne was.
Takuan Seiyo
Historically, an artist has been one who serves an elite class: priest, monarch, or burgher; he is expected to put the values, ethos, and idols of this elite into concrete form. Artists who do this best are lauded and achieve success. Given this, one must state that this insanity is the visible evidence of the Western elite's*
hatred of their own civilization and their desire to destroy it.
* But then, which elite? is the elite that attends opera or classical music symphonies the same as the elite that pushes the poet-modernist trash?
Chuck Norris can make any joke work (particularly a Chuck Norris joke). But it appears that I don't have that ability.
There has always been art for everyone, not just the "elite" of society. True, art aimed at those with control of the fattest purse strings tends to be technically superior to that aimed at commoners, but this is only a tendency, not an ironclad rule.
But the existence of support for anti-civilizational art among the leading players in directing the fate of Western nations does speak to an existential crisis over the meaning and direction of society.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
The communist plan to take over America via cultural communism read into the Congressional record by Rep. A.S.Herlong in the 1960's included these points in the section dealing with the arts:
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
Congressional Record, Vol. 109 88th Congress, 1st Session Appendix Pages A1-A2842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12
If you read the entire 45 points in the communist plan, you will weep at how close they are to ticking off every box, even the major ones like "Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States". The present head of the American Communist Party hailed Obama's election as having "a friend in the White House". It's amazing what a few committed determined ideologues can accomplish via a cascade of easily manipulated "useful idiots" as Lenin termed them. Public education is in the hands of the Left and the media entertainment complex is a full time propaganda factory for them.
To be fair, I think that COMINTERN counts as more than a "few committed determined ideologues".
But yeah, the 'cascade of easily manipulated "useful idiots" as Lenin termed them' is still amazing.
Y'all
Drudge has posted a great photo of what I call Islams' "Modern dance."
Takuan Seiyo
The first and last frames are easily understood. The rest of you have big words and complex ideas. Here is my take:
Humanity is bored. It doesn't know what to do with itself anymore. Like a 6 year old watching mamma try on the 5th pair of shoes at Payless X population of lost souls.
"His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Luke 3:17
Post a Comment