4116  Reconstructed or real?

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 15:09:07 -0700
From: Igor Polk <ipolk@VIRTUAR.COM>
Subject: Reconstructed or real?

Christopher,
I never was in doubt that Canyengue is a real dance.
How it could not be real, if people dance it !?

About "reconstructed".
There is one way to think about a dance:
1. A dance is invented by gurus who pass it to their students and so on...
So if it is lost, it has to be reconstructed painstakingly researching
historical facts.

There is another way:
2. A dance exists itself. It is coded in our body mechanics and our
perception of music. It is like science or math theory. Nobody invents it,
it is discovered. It is a property of the world we live in.
As soon as you in the right mood, in the right position, using certain
principles, with certain music, improvising - you discover a dance called
Canyengue! What else!?

More about "reconstructed". If we assume 2, there should be no doubt that
even those who did not see actual milongas of 20s can easily dance the right
dance based on what their fathers and grandfathers told them: they did not
have to learn each piece of dance, but just dance in accordance with
principles passed on from early generations: "Dance like this"!
"Reconstructed" and "real" is the same thing here.

I believe 1. is more related to the dance of individual artists, individual
styles. 2. is more related to a dance style, a more general way of dancing.
"Dance like me" and "Dance like this" is not the same thing.

I am glad that what you say supports my view.

Interesting, that I have seen how someone claiming that they dance Canyengue
did not actually dance it, they followed patterns, but not the basic
principles of the dance. They did not dance Canyengue. They danced the style
they knew before with figures more specific to Canyengue with the Canyengue
music. And this was not the same to me like a real thing.

Igor