Kai Tai Chan has made incomparably significant contributions to the development of intercultural and interdisciplinary practice in 21st century Australian contemporary dance (Dyson & Stock, 2006). His commitment to rejecting the Western hegemony of dance technique and creating works that resonate with the dialectic audience of Australia was decades ahead of his time, exploring social issues that are only beginning to be interrogated today (Lester, 2000). Despite his contributions to the development of Australian contemporary dance, Chan remains demarcated from the Western art canon due to his ‘otherness’ both in the 20th century Australian dance community and wider Australian community (Lester, 2000). His ‘otherness’ is established from his unconventional pathway into dance and choreography, non-conformity to Western dance lineages, and his identity as an immigrant homosexual artist (Lester, 2000). It is necessary to recover Chan’s contributions to Australian dance to reveal how the bureaucracy and politics of Western artistic funding have shaped the Australian dance canon to the exclusion of migrant voices (Lester, 2000).

Chan remains a singular and significant voice in the Australian dance zeitgeist, influencing the evolution of Australian dance identity into one defined by its hybridity and interculturalism (Dyson & Stock, 2006; Lester, 2000, p. 39). Chan became a choreographer with minimal formal training - studying and working full-time as an architect while training in Margaret Barr’s movement philosophy which explored dance-theatre as a ‘social forum’ that incites passion around contemporary social issues (Lester, 2000, p. 43; Stock, 2008). Growing up in Penang, Malaysia, Chan was exposed to dance, not as a high art, but as an innate form of human expression accessible to all people (Lester, 1998; Lester, 2000). Dance was ingrained in the spiritual and socio-cultural customs of his own Chinese heritage and that of his Indian and Malay peers including in the Hindu festival Navarātrī and Malaysian Dikir Barat (Lester, 1998; Lester, 2000). The influences of Malaysian dance culture and his studies with Margaret Barr shaped his philosophy that dance should not be limited in subject  to the ‘aesthetic’ or ‘romantic’ rather, dance should be for all and represent all (Lester, 2000). His philosophy was extremely ahead of his time, driving him to hire dancers of diverse training backgrounds, age, size, race, sexuality, and culture, in a climate where Aboriginal Australians were excluded from compulsory voting, homosexual relationships were criminalised and villainised in the wake of the AIDS epidemic, and the White Australia Policy was being debated (Lester, 2000; Meaney, 1995; Australian Electoral Commission, 2020; Bowtell, 2005). Chan criticised the Western hegemony of dance technique which recognised ballet as an absolute indicator of ‘adeptness’ as a dancer and choreographer, with skill in other cultural practices deemed peripheral (Lester, 2000). Instead, Chan exposed his dancers to a wide variety of cultural influences taught by the masters of those practices including company classes that focussed not on perfecting technique, but on practices including Tibetan Massage, Yoga, Balinese dance and Chinese Medicine (Mackinnon 1987, p. 12). He frequently facilitated intercultural exchange, including organising a half year international collaboration between Balinese and Australian dancers culminating in Dancing Demons (1991) (Lester, 2000). His works centred around dissecting the question of ‘what makes us Australian?’, calling us to recognise the unity in our disparate identities through the lens of the ‘other’ (Lester, 2000). This overarching interrogation is best exemplified by his work People Like Us (1991) where he cooked his local Malaysian dish Char Kway Teow for the audience whilst remarking ‘I’m an Australian. When I go away, I miss the bush’, highlighting the inherent hybridity of ‘Australianess’ (Lester, 2000, pp. 184, 221- 222). Chan fought to define an Australian dance identity that was different from established European and American lineages through its non-tokenistic hybridity of different cultural influences (Lester, 2000).

We see the reverberations of Chan’s philosophy in the evolution of Australian contemporary dance works and education. As of the 21st century there has been increased support for the hybridisation of cultural practices with a focus on decolonising dance (Vega, 2018). This can be observed in professional dance training curricula including the Victorian College of the Arts’ (VCA) curriculum which includes cultural practices including Kathak and Wing Chun (University of Melbourne, n.d.). With the inclusion of other cultural practices, there has been a demotion of ballet from its position of absolute authority to one of relative importance as observed by VCA’s ‘ballet for contemporary dance’ classes which position ballet as peripheral to contemporary dance studies (although ballet remains prioritised over training other cultural practices) (University of Melbourne, n.d.). There has also been increased intercultural practice in the independent sphere including the hybrid Greek folk and contemporary dance-theatre of Luke Macaronas’s Infinite Affection (Sts Constantine and Helen Church Hall, 2022). This increased acceptance of intercultural practice is also evident in Australia Council for the Arts’ (formerly the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust) shifts in funding support, namely their expansion of their National Performing Arts Partnership framework to include Marrugeku and Artback NT where previously the only intercultural company they deemed a major national performing arts organisation was Bangarra Dance Theatre, with all other funding allocated to dance companies rooted in Western dance lineages including the Australian Ballet, Queensland Ballet, Sydney Dance Company and West Australian Ballet (Australian Council for the Arts, n.d.).

In addition to his impact on the intercultural voice of 21st century Australian contemporary dance, Chan has significantly influenced the acceptance of interdisciplinary collaboration in Australian contemporary dance practice. Influenced by his background in architecture and the notion of complementarity in Confucianist philosophy, Chan rejected the need to preserve dance’s ‘purity’, rather, regarding dance as a mode of communication alongside other art forms including theatre, music performance, literature, and architecture (Lester, 2000). For example: in The Shrew (1986) he integrated dialogue, instrument playing and acapella singing to explore the oppression of women, in People Like Us (1991) he integrated live cooking to explore food as a core component of his Malaysian-Chinese heritage and in Midday Moon (Performance Space, 1984) he designed an immersive set that included use of Eucalyptus scent, water that splashed the audience and live set construction to explore the Australian connection to landscape (Lester, 2000). Chan stated that he wanted audiences to see One Extra’s work not for his dance-theatre ‘style’, but for the issues they were exploring, reflective of Barr’s notion of dance as a catalyst for involvement in social issues (Lester, 2000, p. 140). To achieve this goal, he broke down barriers between disciplines, subverting the ‘rules’ of dance to shape his form around the needs of his content, creating performances that had no clear through line in style (Lester, 2000; Pollack, 1984). Chan’s influence on the prevalence of interdisciplinarity in 21st century Australian contemporary dance is evident in both educational and professional spheres. In education, there has been an extension of dance training regimes to include proficiency in collaboration with science, design and music disciplines, exemplified by Victorian College of the Arts’ inclusion of Digital Dance and Interdisciplinary Project subjects in their curriculum and a broader encouragement of interdisciplinary practice through the staging of works such as Amrita Hepi’s Here we have it (Space 28, 2021) in the VCA graduate season which combined the use of voice with movement (University of Melbourne, n.d.; University of Melbourne, 2021). In the professional sphere there has been increased interdisciplinary collaboration by dance companies including Chunky Move’s collaboration with video artist Kris Moyes and designer Callum Morton for Yung Lung (2021) and Australian Dance Theatre’s collaboration with Canadian multidisciplinary artist Louis-Philippe Demers and UK video artist Gina Czarnecki for Devolution (2006) which integrated robotic prostheses into the work exploring the relationship between machine and body (Chunky Move, 2021; Australian Dance Theatre, n.d.).

Despite his widespread and significant contribution to Australian dance, Kai Tai Chan remains excluded from the Western art canon - a reality exemplified by the loss of Australian Council funding and subsequent dissolution of One Extra Company in 2006 (Lester, 2000; Trove, n.d.). His exclusion can be credited to his ‘otherness’ both in the Australian dance community and wider Australian community. Within the wider Australian community, Chan was seen as an ‘other’ due to his identity as a Malaysian-Chinese immigrant and homosexual resulting in the attribution of reductionist stereotypes to his practice which undervalued his contribution to Australian dance history, resulting in his exclusion from the Western art canon (Lester, 2000, pp. 118, 181, 206, 212). Chan’s tenure as a choreographer coincided with the sinophobic rhetoric of the 1901 ‘White Australia’ Policy which established that Australia should preserve ‘the British tradition of freedom and equality under the law’ by forcing immigrants to assimilate into Australian culture by renouncing their cultural traditions (Meaney, 1995). As Chan’s works often explored and criticised notions of Australian identity, his treatment as an ‘other’ inhibited his works from being valued in the Western art canon as British-Australians did not believe that Chan could understand true Australian values and culture thus, invalidating his explorations of national identity (Lester, 2000, pp. 206, 212). During his time with One Extra Company, Chan was constantly reduced to being simply an ‘ethnic’ or ‘gay’ artist due to his explorations of LGBTQ+ and immigrant themes in his works rather than being appreciated for his choreographic merit, resulting in his uncredited contributions to Australian dance innovation (Lester, 2000).

The Australian dance canon is shaped by the allocation of public endowment to support the work of artists (Lester, 2000). Chan’s unconventional pathway to choreography, deviation from Western dance lineages in his practice, and dismantling of boundaries between artistic disciplines established him as an ‘other’ within the dance community which impacted the funding of his practice, resulting in his exclusion from the Australian dance canon. Chan originally studied to become an architect, training in Margaret Barr’s movement philosophy outside of classes (Stock, 2008; Lester, 1998). Throughout Chan’s early career, he balanced a full-time job in architecture along with his choreographic practice and dance training which mirrored the careers of his company members who also came from unconventional pathways and balanced other established careers outside of dance (Lester, 1999, p. 49). Preserving his full-time career outside of dance reduced his credibility as an artist in the eyes of Western dance artist contemporaries as it contradicted the Western romanticisation of the ‘starving’ artist who was fully devoted to their artform regardless of monetary gain (Lester, 2000, p. 83).  In addition, Chan trained in ballet later than deemed ‘acceptable’ for professional dance practitioners, training in ballet and Graham technique in his 20s (Lester, 1999). This impacted the value and credibility of his practice to other dance practitioners, particularly those of funding bodies, who doubted Chan’s competence as a dancer and choreographer due to his unconventional training (Lester, 2000, pp. 71-72).

In addition, by positioning ballet as a peripheral rather than central influence on his practice compared to Margaret Barr’s philosophy and his own experiences of folk dance in Malaysia, Chan isolated his work from the established value frameworks of Australian funding bodies which were based on American and European modern dance lineages (Lester, 2000, pp. 71-72, 120). This separation from Western dance lineages resulted in the diminishment of his work’s value by Western artists who struggled with finding a value framework in which to view and evaluate his work (Lester, 2000). Funding bodies also struggled with categorising Chan’s work due to its interdisciplinary nature, with no funding category dedicated to interdisciplinary practice until 1994-95 (Lester, 2000, pp. 211-212; Throsby, 2000). His breaking of discipline boundaries contradicted the Western art canon’s value of ‘artistic purity’ and was not viewed as credible innovation due to the formerly explored reasons of his identity as a Malaysian-Chinese homosexual immigrant and his lack of classical training (Hines, 1991, p.124; Lester, 2000, pp. 211-212). This is evidenced by the appreciation for and funding of the Australian Ballet’s The Competition by Maurice Bejart, which was praised for its interdisciplinary weaving of magic tricks and cinematic techniques into ballet, despite Chan making the same advancements decades earlier with no recognition by funding bodies or the artistic community (Shoubridge, 1989, 5 December). The exclusion of Chan from the Western art canon is epitomised by the loss of Australian council funding for One Extra Company in 1990 with the cited reasons of sub-standard innovation and artistic performance (Mosman Daily, 1989).

Kai Tai Chan has made numerous significant contributions to Australian contemporary dance including pioneering intercultural dance practices and popularising hybrid-arts and interdisciplinary collaboration. We can clearly observe his influence through the shifts in government funding to include intercultural performing arts companies, in dance training curricula which have shifted towards a hybrid, intercultural approach to Australian contemporary dance, and in independent and company dance works of the 21st century. Despite his contributions, Kai Tai Chan remains excluded from the Western art canon due to his ‘otherness’ in the Australian dance community and wider community, this exclusion is epitomised by the dissolution of One Extra Company in 2006. The recovery of his contributions forces us to reflect on how Western models of funding and training have inhibited the innovative voices of marginalised groups from developing - Kai Tai Chan is only one example of the many minority artists who have shaped the Australian dance identity to the exclusion of the Western art canon.

Reference List:
Australian Council for the Arts. (n.d.). National Performing Arts Partnership Framework (Partnership Framework). Retrieved June 9, 2022, from https://australiacouncil.gov.au/investment-anddevelopment/multi-year-investment/national-performing-arts-partnership-framework/

Australian Dance Theatre. (n.d.). Devolution. https://adt.org.au/works/devolution/ Australian Electoral Commission. (2020, November 12). Electoral milestones for Indigenous Australians. https://www.aec.gov.au/indigenous/milestones.htm

Bowtell, W. (2005). Australia’s Response to HIV/AIDS 1982-2005 (1). Lowy Institute for International Policy. https://archive.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/pubfiles/Bowtell%2C_Australia%27s_ Response_to_HIV_AIDS_logo_1.pdf

Chunky Move. (2021). Yung Lung. https://chunkymove.com/works/yung-lung/

Dyson, J., & Stock, C. (2006). Looking out from downunder—Australian dance today. Ausdance. https://ausdance.org.au/articles/details/looking-out-from-downunderaustralian-dancetoday

Hines, T. J. (1991). Collaborative form: Studies in the relations of the arts. Kent State University Press.

Lester, G. (1989). Kai Tai Chan: part one, fingers dancing in the dark. Brolga, 8, 6-17.
Lester, G. (1999). Kai Tai Chan: part two, the London Years. Brolga, 10, 46-55.
Lester, G. (2000). Kai Tai Chan: A different path [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Deakin University.

Mackinnon, S. (1987). Decision time for One Extra. Dance Australia.

Meaney, N. (1995). The end of ‘white Australia’ and Australia's changing perceptions of Asia, 1945– 1990. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 49(2), 171- 189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357719508445155

Mosman Daily. (1989). Dance group struck from grants list. Mosman Daily.

Pollack, A. (1984). Kai Tai Chan. Sydney Morning Herald. Shoubridge, W. (1989). Everyone's a loser in Bejart’s banal ballet. The Australian.

Stock, C. (2008). Different inflections - Intercultural dance in Australia. The Korean Journal of Dance, 57. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/18843/

Throsby, D. (2000). Public funding of the arts in Australia - 1900 to 2000. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/ed192b5a87e90dbeca2569de0025c1a6? OpenDocument Trove. (n.d.). One Extra Dance (1978-2006). https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/726053

University of Melbourne. (2021). Here we have it. https://finearts-music.unimelb.edu.au/showcase/herewe-have-it
University of Melbourne. (n.d.). Bachelor of Fine Arts (Dance). https://study.unimelb.edu.au/find/courses/undergraduate/bachelor-of-fine-artsdance/what-will-i-study/

Vega, P. C. (2018, November 1). The 2017 Venice Biennale and the Colonial Other. Third Text. https://thirdtext.org/vega-2017-venice-biennale

Choi Seunghee/Sai Shoki is a Korean modern dance pioneer who rose to fame in the 1930s alongside the likes of Martha Graham and Mary Wigwan. She greatly influenced the development of modern dance in East Asia by hybridising the different movement vocabularies and pedagogies between the east and the west. Despite her immense impact on the development of modern dance globally, her role has been neglected outside of East Asia due to World War II, North Korean regime, and exclusion from the Western Art canon. Choi Seunghee's main goal was to elevate the ‘lowly’ folk dance form to one that could be respected the same way Chinese opera and modern dance were respected at that time. Her apprenticeship with Ishii Baku - a prominent Japanese modern dance choreographer encouraged her to integrate Korean and Chinese folk dance with European modern dance, creating modernised versions of traditional dances such as the Janggochum and Salpuri. During her international tours around Europe, she collaborated with leading artists in varying artistic disciplines including Pablo Picasso and Jean Cocteau which facilitated the exchange and subsequent hybridisation between east and west dance cultures which we can observe in Wigman’s use of non-western accompaniment.

Her explorations with hybridity have influenced the stylisation of current East Asian contemporary dance, resulting in a movement language centred around grounded and fixed positioning of the pelvis, and biotensegrity drawn from martial art influences. You can notice these idiosyncrasies in Jemma Lee and Nam Hwayeon’s work – both prominent Korean contemporary artists.

Choi Seunghee remains historically visible in East Asia with recreations of her Folk-influenced repertory broadcasted on South Korean national television. However, her historical visibility outside of East Asia has significantly diminished due to three main reasons: Firstly, as a result of World War 2 and the Korean War, her international tour was abruptly truncated, and she was enlisted to perform energetic folk-influenced dances for the Japanese army. After the surrender of Japan and the beginning of the Korean War, she moved her dance school to Beijing losing a large proportion of her Korean student base. After accusations of collaboration with the Japanese during the Korean War, she defected to North Korea and established the Choi Seung-hee State Research Institute for Dance where many of her surviving students were educated. The purging of North Korean artists and intellectuals during the regime’s 1950s campaign against ‘revisionism’ and the restriction of her students from leaving North Korea has been the largest contributing factor to the diminishment of her modern dance legacy. Another reason for her reduced historical visibility is the nation-state system of recording dance genealogy which neglects modern dance evolution outside of the United States and European (German) centres. Despite her immense impact on modern dance, due to the East Asian folk origins of her practice, her contribution is often neglected as it doesn’t fall within the Eurocentric lineages of modern dance. Choi Seunghee’s influences on modern dance were less widely adopted as dance practitioners outside of East Asia lacked the pre-requisite knowledge and movement vocabulary of Asian folk dance to achieve the hybridity of Choi Seunghee’s practice whereas American and European modern dance adopts a more culturally apathetic approach that requires little to no understanding of American or European culture the execute the style. We also of course cannot deny the ongoing racism and discrimination against Asians, especially in the years after World War 2 which has further slashed the legacy and influence of East Asian modern dance pioneers such as Choi Seunghee by excluding them from the Western art canon diminishing their influence to one of orientalism and exoticism, and limiting their interaction with American modern dancers. For example, the Chinese Exclusion Act prevented immigration of all Chinese people which later extended to those of Japanese and Korean descent. It was enforced actively by the Asiatic Exclusion League up until 1942.

Reference List:
57 Studio. (2020). Hwayeon Nam, Mind Stream _Document Film [Video]. Retrieved 12 April 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZFMgTvFsLA.

An, S. (2020). Fragmented memories of Korea’s first modern dancer Choi Seung Hee [Video]. Retrieved 12 April 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feXexNyCgtc.

Arirang Culture. (2015). Arirang Prime－Dance Legend Choi Seung－hee 전설의 무희 최승희 [Image]. Retrieved 12 April 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_-21v_rrn0&t=4s.

File, C. (2013). Korean Dance: Pure Emotion and Energy. Seoul Selection.

Hoshino, Y. (2016). Use of Dance to Spread Propaganda during the Sino-Japanese War. ATHENS JOURNAL OF HISTORY, 2(3), 193.-198. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajhis.2-3-3

Kim Young-Hoon. (2006). Border-Crossing: Choe Seung-hui’s Life and the Modern Experience. Korea Journal, 46(1), 170–197.

Kleeman, F. Y. (2014). Dancers of the Empire. University of Hawaii Press.

Lee, J. (2021). 담담히 적시고나 / A Film by Jemma Lee [Video]. Retrieved 12 April 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg0dkqnrkfg&t=160s.

Maison des Cultures du Monde - Centre français du patrimoine culturel immatériel. (2015). Hommage à Choi Seung-hee (Corée) [Image]. Retrieved 12 April 2022, from https://youtu.be/Hb6PeK61iRQ.

Manning, S. (2019). Dance History. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Dance Studies (pp. 303–326). London,: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved April 12, 2022, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350024489.ch-011

Park, S., 2006. The Making of a Cultural Icon for the Japanese Empire: Choe Seung-hui's U.S. Dance Tours and "New Asian Culture" in the 1930s and 1940s. Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 14(3), pp. 597-632.

Van Zile, J. (2013). Performing Modernity in Korea: The Dance of Ch’oe Sŭng-hŭi. Korean Studies, 37, 124–149. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24575279

Wilcox, E. (2019). Revolutionary Bodies: Chinese Dance and the Socialist Legacy. The Journal Of Dance Society For Documentation, 53, 301-307. https://doi.org/10.26861/sddh.2019.53.301 문화예술의전당. 한국무용가 -최승희 -불꽃처럼 바람처럼-룰루처럼 딩가딩가 [Video]. Retrieved 12 April 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1cQu93-Fas.

조선무용KOREAN DANCER. (2020). [최승희] 장고춤 Seunghee Choi Janggochum｜조선무용KOREAN DANCER [Image]. Retrieved 12 April 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTH1MRdriRA.

타M머신. (2015). [신긔방긔~] 북한 영화 "사도성의 이야기" 공개, 최승희 안무 출연 [Video]. Retrieved 12 April 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L105CAs4ngM.

통일부 UNITV. (2016). 남북을 잇는 전설의 무희¸ 최승희 [Video]. Retrieved 12 April 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK4n3WAEoKc.

How have the value frameworks imposed upon dance within an institutionalised environment influenced my personal dance practice?

The introduction of new value frameworks by the institutionalised environment of VCA has deconstructed my understanding of what constitutes a ‘valuable’ personal dance practice. This change in understanding has influenced how I approach and view my dance practice, namely, by shifting my value framework away from the standards of commodified dance and towards evaluating dance as an artform (Foster, 2019). My personal dance background in ballet within the examination context has led to a personal value framework constructed around the notion of dance as a commodity, shaping my dance practice prior to tertiary study (Foster, 2019). VCA introduces alternate value frameworks concerning dance, centred around both the conformity and the deviance of our personal practice from contemporary dance norms. This has encouraged increased experimentation within my dance practice. The tension between my personal value framework and VCA’s value frameworks is embodied in my current dance practice as I alternate between fulfilling contrasting ideals corresponding with both personal and VCA value frameworks.

My personal value framework shaped by my dance background in ballet within the examination context has commodified my dance practice (Foster, 2019, p. 52). Foster (2019) claims that for dance’s value to be commodified there must a conversion of dance’s substantiality and a dampening of its sensory experience (p. 52). To increase dance’s substantiality, dance movements become more spectacularised, ‘measurable, repeatable and teachable’ to achieve broad appeal, and dancers focus on mastering a standardised ideal in lieu of exploring new sensory experiences (Foster, 2019, pp. 52, 56, 58). These conversions manifest in classical ballet where movements have been standardised to become easily evaluated and reproducible, and mastering individual skills such as a triple pirouette is emphasised over exploring the sensations of turning (Foster, 2019, p. 52). Ballet movements have also been spectacularised over time, requiring more extreme displays of virtuosity and flexibility such as oversplit extensions to impress a general audience (Foster, 2019, pp. 56, 58). The commodification of ballet is reflected by ballet’s value framework where value is determined by ‘communal content logic’ meaning that the closer my practice conforms to the norms of the ballet syllabus, the more valuable my practice is (Gielen, 2005, p. 798). The exemplar of ballet’s value framework is the ballet examination where examinees are scored based on their ability to satisfy standard ballet conventions such as level of turnout, memorising a set vocabulary of ballet steps, and correctly poising the head, neck, and shoulders. The exam provides limited freedom for participants to deviate from ballet’s norms without getting penalised, enunciating a strict divide between valuable and non-valuable dance.

Ballet’s value framework has led to the commodification of my own dance practice prior to tertiary study (Foster, 2019, p. 52). My dance practice prior to VCA mirrored ballet’s value framework by focusing on fulfilling set external milestones and receiving audience validation to constitute value. For example, rather than exploring new movement pathways and embodied sensation, my practice focussed on the mastery of certain technical skills such as multiple pirouettes to satisfy the ideals of my ballet background and appeal to a general audience (Foster, 2019, p. 52). Furthermore, my practice prioritised the third-person perspective over the first-person perspective, creating shapes which satisfied classical aesthetics such as rounded arms and symmetrical lines to appeal to an external viewer in lieu of experimenting with unconventional shapes to explore new movement sensations (Merleau-Ponty, 1945). My personal value framework influenced by ballet’s value framework has significantly influenced my dance practice prior to tertiary education by commodifying how I measure value in my practice.

The introduction of new value frameworks by VCA has instigated a re-evaluation of the existing value framework I impose on my dance practice, altering how I approach my dance practice. VCA evaluates the value of dance as a gift rather than as a commodity (Foster, 2019, pp. 52, 53). This alternate value ideology regards dance as independent of the commodity market, bypassing the constraints of commodified dance such as needing to possess broad appeal and fulfil a given genre’s ideals (Foster, 2019, pp. 53, 54). Instead, there is value in dance through its constant process of interrogation and reflection (Foster, 2019, pp. 79, 81, 85, 162). VCA’s alternate value ideology deviates from the ‘communal content logic’ of classical ballet, adhering instead to ‘singular content logic’ where value is determined by how the dance practice deviates from established dance norms and reflects the authentic motivations of the dancer (Gielen, 2005, p. 798). This alternate value framework manifests in contemporary improvisation at VCA, where we are encouraged to ignore concerns over external aesthetics and commit entirely to investigating our personal movement intentions. For example, in authentic movement practice we are reminded that there is no ‘wrong’ improvisation, rather, a full commitment to channelling our unfiltered movement impulses constitutes a valuable practice. This VCA value framework recentred a first-person perspective in my dance practice, returning my focus to the first-hand investigation of movement rather than fulfilling external aesthetic ideals (Merleau-Ponty, 1945). For example, in my current practice, I focus on discovering my own style, experimenting with new limb pathways, and integrating other dance styles such as Waacking into my choreography. This contrasts my past approach to practice where I focussed on mastering individual skills such as a triple pirouette to fulfil the ideals of ballet.

However, while VCA introduces the ‘singular content logic’ view of value into my practice, VCA simultaneously reinforces the ‘communal content logic’ value framework present in my past experiences with ballet due to its institutionalised context. VCA expresses an external value framework that reflects the Western art canon by favouring ballet and contemporary within the curriculum, implying the higher worth of those styles in our practice (Dodds, 2011, p. 2). For example, as a first-year student I have two classes of ballet and three classes of contemporary technique per week, as compared to one class of martial arts. VCA expresses the comparative worth of contemporary and ballet technique over martial arts by prioritising its presence and assessment in the curriculum. This is reflective of the Western art canon, affirming the value of Western ‘art-dance’ defined as dance traditionally performed in a concert or theatrical setting to dominant classes in Western society, especially pertaining to the styles of modern dance and ballet (Dodds, 2011, p. 19). Additionally, VCA reinforces the ‘communal content logic’ value framework through examinations, where students are marked to a standardised criteria for each style (Gielen, 2005, p. 798). As we accrue value the closer we are to VCA’s stylistic ideals during examination, there is conflict with the ‘singular content logic’ view of value where value is found in how different dancers interpret or reject stylistic norms to reflect their own voice (Gielen, 2005, p. 798). VCA’s ‘communal content logic’ value framework has influenced my practice by presenting new external ideals my practice aspires to achieve (Gielen, 2005, p. 798). Although VCA’s ‘communal content logic’ value framework and ballet’s value framework both centre around fulfilling external stylistic ideals, VCA introduces alternate ideals into my practice, such as parallel alignment as opposed to ballet’s turnout (Gielen, 2005, p. 798). By introducing different ideals, VCA’s ‘communal content logic’ value framework gives me options to experiment with switching between the norms of different dance styles and a wider concept of what makes my practice valuable (Gielen, 2005, p. 798). VCA’s value frameworks have broadened my perspective on value in my own practice, encouraging further experimentation. However, their introduction has introduced tension between my previous commodified evaluation of value and VCA’s valuing of ‘art-dance’ (Dodds, 2011, p. 19).

My current dance practice embodies the tension within and between VCA’s value frameworks and my previous commodified evaluation of value. VCA encourages me to find value in the internal processes of dance practice in classes such as authentic movement. However, VCA also introduces new external movement ideals through examinations and the curriculum due to its institutionalised context. The dichotomy between these two value frameworks is embodied in my current dance practice. Influenced by VCA’s ‘singular content logic’ value framework, I have increased the role of my first-person perspective when dancing, experimenting with reacting to movement impulses (Gielen, 2005, p. 798; Merleau-Ponty, 1945). I am also willing to de-commodify my dance practice, by pushing the boundaries of my practice beyond what is valued commercially such as by subverting classical ballet norms such as turn out and deprioritising the mastery of virtuosic skills (Foster, 2019, pp. 56, 58). However, within VCA’s institutional context, new sets of ideals reflecting the Western art canon interplay with the internal focus of VCA’s ‘singular content logic’ value framework (Dodds, 2011; Gielen, 2005, p. 798). While my willingness to experiment with non-normative movement reflects the decreased value I place on external validation, my current practice simultaneously seeks to conform to VCA’s notion of valuable ‘art-dance’ (Dodds, 2011, p. 19). For example, VCA’s ‘communal content logic’ value framework values conformity to contemporary and post-modern dance conventions (Gielen, 2005, p. 798). Post-modern dance centres around annihilating ‘all preconceived notions about dance’ by including pedestrian movement, rejecting virtuosity, and rejecting codified techniques in their dance practice (Stanich, 2014, p. 59). These conventions are upheld by VCA in contemporary and improvisation classes, where we are encouraged to experiment with pedestrian movement, and are taught by teachers with varied individual styles, rather than adhering to a modern dance code such as Graham Technique (Stanich, 2014, p. 60). By experimenting with non-normative movement, I inadvertently embody VCA’s external ‘communal content logic’ value framework, while pursuing the internal focus of VCA’s ‘singular content logic’ value framework (Gielen, 2005, p. 798).

The tension between VCA’s value frameworks and the commodified value framework constructed from my ballet background is also embodied within my current practice (Foster, 2019, p. 52). Within my current practice, I feel an obligation to subvert and reject the norms of ‘commodified dance’ to fulfil VCA’s notions of a valuable dance practice (Foster, 2019, p. 52). VCA rejects the value defining norms of commodified dance as seen in their ‘sanitisation’ of many spectacular or commercially appealing elements from our study, including reducing the use of facial expressions, abstracting literal storytelling and reducing acrobatic tricks such as aerials in contemporary classes (Foster, 2019, pp. 56, 58). As a result, my current practice neglects training many of the spectacular ‘tricks’ that constituted value in my commodified dance background, such as fouetté turn combinations. However, the tension between my personal value framework and VCA’s value framework is embodied as I still retain some of the ideals from my previous commodified perception of value thus, I feel uncomfortable fully conforming to the Western standard of valuable ‘art-dance’ (Dodds, 2011, p. 19). This tension manifests as an inconsistency in how I evaluate and approach my personal dance practice. Between practice sessions, I switch between prioritising mastering specific skills that are marketable to a general audience and prioritising the internal kinaesthetic experience which caters to VCA’s value frameworks.

VCA has significantly influenced my dance practice by altering my pre-established value frameworks both positively and negatively. VCA has positively influenced my practice by allowing more flexibility in how I define a valuable dance practice, teaching me that my practice can be valuable even if it does not appeal to a commercial audience; rather, value can be found through exploring your own kinaesthetic experience (Foster, 2019, pp. 79, 81, 85, 162). However, the tension between VCA’s value frameworks and my previous commodified perception of value has negatively impacted my practice by constructing an impossible ideal. By satisfying the criteria for value set by VCA, my practice is not valuable in the ‘commodified dance’ value framework and vice versa (Foster, 2019, p. 52). Until I commit to a singular value framework, this tension in evaluation will always be present. The tension between value frameworks manifests in my practice as an inability to commit to fulfilling one set of norms. I am unable to master the technique and virtuosity valued in the commodified dance context, but I also cannot dedicate my practice solely to the abstract experimentation that VCA values (Foster, 2019, pp. 56, 58; Gielen, 2005, p. 798). Although, these two examples are not mutually exclusive, this tension creates difficulty in finding my personal style as I am always seeking to fulfil the norms of different value frameworks. The tension between and within VCA’s value frameworks and my personal value framework borne from ‘commodified dance’ is embodied in my dance practice, significantly influencing my experience and perception of my dance practice (Foster, 2019, p. 52).

The value frameworks imposed within the institutional context of VCA have significantly influenced my personal dance practice by introducing contrasting notions of value to that of ‘commodified dance’ (Foster, 2019, p. 52). These new value frameworks have both positively and negatively influenced my dance practice due to their conflict with my preconceived notions of valuable practice borne from my background in ballet. My analysis of the impacts of institutional value frameworks on my dance practice, raises a question of whether we can ever be completely singular in our value framework, or is it inevitable that we will always seek to fulfil external norms in our dance practice regardless of our attempts at rejecting them. This question could be further explored in future study.

Reference List:

Dodds, S. (2011). Dancing on the Canon: Embodiments of Value in Popular Dance (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan UK.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230305656 

Foster, S. (2019). Valuing Dance: Commodities and Gifts in Motion (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190933975.001.0001

Gielen, P. (2005). Art and Social Value Regimes. Current Sociology, 53(5), 789-806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392105055020

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomenology of Perception (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Stanich, V. (2014). Poetics and Perception: Making Sense of Postmodern Dance (Ph.D). Ohio State University.