I have the impression that a remarkably ironic and paradoxical situation has emerged here, and that it accounts for a great deal seen in my own profession.
The nature of movement lies at the heart of much we are told to do and it's typically defined as either active or passive. But beyond that are the ideas around choreography, motor planning, unconscious processing, cultural acceptance and rejection, training, dieting and several other things I'm forgetting.
In this podcast a great deal is said about how motion can save us, change us and, maybe, improve us.
Of greatest interest to me was the conflation of dancing with any motion, and, as we know, movement is inherent to life.
Is it possible that my profession has simply forgotten or de-emphasized or hidden the fact that not all movement is equally helpful?
The nature of movement lies at the heart of much we are told to do and it's typically defined as either active or passive. But beyond that are the ideas around choreography, motor planning, unconscious processing, cultural acceptance and rejection, training, dieting and several other things I'm forgetting.
In this podcast a great deal is said about how motion can save us, change us and, maybe, improve us.
Of greatest interest to me was the conflation of dancing with any motion, and, as we know, movement is inherent to life.
Is it possible that my profession has simply forgotten or de-emphasized or hidden the fact that not all movement is equally helpful?
Comment