I'm planning to write a piece about the shows I saw this year, 2009. This is not only brought about by the fact that this year is going to end, but also because we're seriously planning to launch the fourth issue of Runthru soon. That 4th issue was supposed to be released late last year, but we just didn't have the funds nor the time to release it. We (my brother Lucas, who is the magazine's art director, and I) agreed to release Issue 4 this year, anytime this year, but real life happened - he became a daddy and I became corporately employed. And, look, it's now December.
The original 4th issue has a Best of 2008 feature in it, and I'm quite proud of the compilation and felt that it was very definitive of the year that was. Now, however, it is time to write something about 2009. And 2009 proved to be more tricky. I ran into several things that seemed to break my spirit and my belief in this art form that I so loved. Last year, the only problem I had was the magazine was losing too much money and not paying for itself, like we thought it would. This year, while I had found the resources that could keep the magazine alive, there were many other challenges that I had to overcome. Some of which I am still overcoming. But that isn't the point of this blog post.
Many people say that 2009 was a very bad year all around. I am inclined to agree, but it wasn't all that bad. I realized a lot of things this year, I was really put into situations where I was to question what I had set out as my life's work, and whether it was worth all the hassle and stress and pain. However, the year wasn't a total loss because there were good parts as well. And through all the misery and disillusionment, I feel that I came out a much better person, that I have better priorities and a better outlook in general. And because of the trials of 2009, I believe that 2010 will be wonderful.
Thank you for reading me and for waiting patiently for Issue 4. It's going to be a goodie.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Sagip Sining/Art to the Rescue
Monday, October 12, 2009
artistic fulfillment
I have to ask, what is artistic fulfillment in dance? Because it doesn't seem to be the same for other art forms. Dancers feel fulfilled when they complete triple pirouettes flawlessly or when they get to do an emilianovich, staying in the air all the way through. But is that artistic? Isn't that a skill you practice over and over until you get it right?
There is a very fine line between what is artistic and what is acrobatic. What is art and what is entertainment? What is art and what is spectacle? Of course, we first have to ask - what is art, in the first place? It is so dangerous to attempt a definition. I used to think, art is what moves you. Now that's dangerous as well. For example, when I first saw the woman with no arm and her partner with no leg in that pas de deux together, I found it hilarious. Now, people are forwarding the clip and posting it up on Facebook as so inspiring, so moving. It almost made me feel bad that I laughed at it before.
Almost.
Coming from a show by somebody who argued with me about artistic fulfillment, I find the need to stop and try to define "artistic fulfillment" first. What does this mean to a dancer? Dancers do not create the choreography, but we add in our little things. Some of us perfect the steps - we are then called virtuosic. Some of us inject so much of ourselves into the steps that we become one with the steps, that we become the dance. However, I don't think these dancers would go out and say, "I am artistically fulfilled." That would be too weird.
Instead, dancers say they are artistically fulfilled when they find themselves dancing at the company of their choice or working with a particular choreographer, or when they are given their dream role, or when they complete their 32 fouettes, or when they are bowing to a standing ovation and the moment is so big that tears just stream down their face. It has become a general catch-all phrase. And it has nothing to do with artistry, except that they are dancing.
I guess I just want to pick a fight. I'm crazy like that.
There is a very fine line between what is artistic and what is acrobatic. What is art and what is entertainment? What is art and what is spectacle? Of course, we first have to ask - what is art, in the first place? It is so dangerous to attempt a definition. I used to think, art is what moves you. Now that's dangerous as well. For example, when I first saw the woman with no arm and her partner with no leg in that pas de deux together, I found it hilarious. Now, people are forwarding the clip and posting it up on Facebook as so inspiring, so moving. It almost made me feel bad that I laughed at it before.
Almost.
Coming from a show by somebody who argued with me about artistic fulfillment, I find the need to stop and try to define "artistic fulfillment" first. What does this mean to a dancer? Dancers do not create the choreography, but we add in our little things. Some of us perfect the steps - we are then called virtuosic. Some of us inject so much of ourselves into the steps that we become one with the steps, that we become the dance. However, I don't think these dancers would go out and say, "I am artistically fulfilled." That would be too weird.
Instead, dancers say they are artistically fulfilled when they find themselves dancing at the company of their choice or working with a particular choreographer, or when they are given their dream role, or when they complete their 32 fouettes, or when they are bowing to a standing ovation and the moment is so big that tears just stream down their face. It has become a general catch-all phrase. And it has nothing to do with artistry, except that they are dancing.
I guess I just want to pick a fight. I'm crazy like that.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Lisa @ 25! - shows this weekend part 2
Alicia sa Bundok Dilim - Shows this Weekend part 1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


