In an article that appeared in the October 31st edition of the Collegian (“Dancing is an Artistic Sport”), Kathryn Vieceli makes the argument that we should recognize dance as a sport. An artistic sport, yes, but a sport nonetheless. But understanding dance as sport first and art second  fundamentally misunderstands the essence of dance. 

Dance can exist as a sport, but that is not its primary function. I don’t disagree with any of Kathryn’s claims as to the benefits of dance: Dancing is as intensive and beneficial as any sport. But coverage of dance rightly falls under the art and culture sections of newspapers and journals and it always should. 

Art is created for the sake of beauty and so is dance. While all sports — baseball, football, soccer, etc. — have beauty of their own, they were not created for the sake of beauty. Dance certainly deserves respect, but it deserves respect as the beautiful art form it is. Granting dance status as a sport is not a prerequisite for recognizing its inherent athleticism and excellence. Dance is not an artistic sport — it is an art that is athletic. 

I think the problem with perceptions of dance is less that people don’t think dance is intense, physically demanding, or rigorous, but more that they don’t understand it. Most people get exposure to only certain visual and performing arts in their education. Maybe your class took a field trip to an art museum, and you probably read some plays in English class. Perhaps you participated in a school play, even if your role was only peasant number three. Dance, however, is vastly overlooked in education, even in a place like Hillsdale. If you can’t understand what you’re watching, it’s much harder to appreciate it and respect it as much as it might deserve. So yes, respect dance as an incredible athletic endeavor, respect it as an art. But in order for that to happen, it must start with education. 

 

Emma De Nooy is a senior studying Rhetoric and Public Address and Dance.