Aesthetic Perception of Stage Setups in Dance



Abstract Views
557

Downloads
335

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Jul 29, 2022
Published Aug 31, 2022
10.24018/ejsport.2022.1.4.30

Abstract viewed = 557 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Dance as moving art is an adequate medium for exploring visual perception and the aesthetic value of movements. The aesthetic experience in dance movements and performances was investigated over the last two decades. Still, research on stage setups in dance is severely underrepresented despite their importance in dance choreographies. The study aimed to assess dancers (hip-hop and modern dance) and non-dancers' aesthetic evaluation of three different prototypical movements performed on five prototypical stage setups. N=27 dancers (hip-hop and modern) and non-dancers evaluated various movements performed on different stage setups on their perceived aesthetic. It was hypothesized that symmetrical stage setups and a fast movement or a movement with a wide form were generally preferred. It was furthermore expected that dancers and non-dancers, as well as dancers from different styles, differ in their aesthetic perception of stage setups and dance movements. Results revealed that the movement contract-release and the stage setup V were generally evaluated as most aesthetic. Nevertheless, while hip-hop dancers and non-dancers preferred a free stage setup as the least aesthetic, modern dancers preferred a bloc setup as the least aesthetic. It can be concluded that there is a general preference for movements comprising a large amplitude and range of motions and for stage setups that contain symmetry and a wide form. Thus, symmetry seems essential when developing stage setups in dance. This can be used as a tool trying to delight the observer as well as trying to play with contrast and convergence throughout a whole dance performance.

Keywords: computer animation, hip-hop, modern dance, pairwise comparison

References

  1. Amir, O., Biederman, I., & Hayworth, K. J. (2011). The neural basis for shape preferences. Vision research, 51(20), 2198-2206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.015.
     Google Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Konflikt, Erregung, Neugier. [Conflict, arousal and curiosity]. Klett.
     Google Scholar
  3. Blake, R., & Shiffrar, M. (2007). Perception of human motion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 47-73. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190152.
     Google Scholar
  4. Brown D. D.; Wijffels G. & Meulenbroek R.G. J. (2021). Individual Differences in Sequential Movement Coordination in Hip-Hop Dance: Capturing Joint Articulation in Practicing the Wave. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 731901. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731901.
     Google Scholar
  5. Calvo-Merino, B., Ehrenberg, S., Leung, D., & Haggard, P. (2010). Experts see it all: configural effects in action observation. Psychological Research, 74(4), 400-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0262-y.
     Google Scholar
  6. Cupchik, G. C., & Winston, A. S. (1996). Confluence and divergence in empirical aesthetics, philosophy, and mainstream psychology. Handbook of perception and cognition: Cognitive ecology, 61-85.
     Google Scholar
  7. Cross, E. S., & Ticini, L. F. (2012). Neuroaesthetics and beyond: New horizons in applying the science of the brain to the art of dance. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9190-y.
     Google Scholar
  8. Deutscher Tanzlehrer- & HipHop-Tanzlehrer Organisation, DTHO. (2021). Turnierordnung der DTHO. German. https://dtho.de/images/Downloads/DTHO_Turnierordnung_01_02_2021.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  9. Deutscher Tanzsport Verband, DTV. (2016). Ratgeber Jazz und Modern Dance. German. https://www.tanzsport.de/files/tanzsport/downloads/sportwelt/jmd/jmd_ratgeber.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  10. Gerber, A. & Mattis, C. (2017). Bewegung inszenieren. [Staging Movement]. Printcenter Berlin.
     Google Scholar
  11. Gilmartin, P. P. (1983). Aesthetic preferences for the proportions and forms of graticules. The Cartographic Journal, 20(2), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.1179/caj.1983.20.2.95.
     Google Scholar
  12. Glass, R. (2005). Observer response to contemporary dance. In R. Grove, C. Stevens & S. McKechnie (Eds.), Thinking in four dimensions: Creativity and cognition in contemporary dance (pp. 107–121). Melbourne University Press.
     Google Scholar
  13. Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2002). Aesthetic Judgments of Novel Graphic Patterns: Analyses of Individual Judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95(3), 755–766. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.755.
     Google Scholar
  14. Jäger, J., & Kuckhermann, R. (2004). Aesthetics and Social Work. Aesthetic Practice in Social Work. Weinheim.
     Google Scholar
  15. Kirsch, L. P., Drommelschmidt, K. A., & Cross, E. S. (2013). The impact of sensorimotor experience on affective evaluation of dance. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00521.
     Google Scholar
  16. Knudson, D. (2009). Significant and meaningful effects in sports biomechanics research. Sports Biomechanics, 8(1), 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763140802629966.
     Google Scholar
  17. Latto, R., Brain, D., & Kelly, B. (2000). An Oblique Effect in Aesthetics: Homage to Mondrian (1872–1944). Perception, 29(8), 981–987. https://doi.org/10.1068/p2352.
     Google Scholar
  18. Latto, R., & Russell-Duff, K. (2002). An Oblique Effect in the Selection of Line Orientation by Twentieth Century Painters. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.2190/3VEY-RC3B-9GM7-KGDY.
     Google Scholar
  19. Makin, A. D., Helmy, M., & Bertamini, M. (2018). Visual cortex activation predicts visual preference: evidence from Britain and Egypt. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(8), 1771-1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1350870.
     Google Scholar
  20. Marković, S. (2010). Aesthetic experience and the emotional content of paintings. Psihologija, 43(1), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1001047M.
     Google Scholar
  21. Marković, S. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. i-Perception, 3(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0450aap.
     Google Scholar
  22. Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.661.
     Google Scholar
  23. Orgs, G., Hagura, N., & Haggard, P. (2013). Learning to like it: aesthetic perception of bodies, movements and choreographic structure. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(2), 603-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.03.010.
     Google Scholar
  24. Orlandi, A., Cross, E. S., & Orgs, G. (2020). Timing is everything: Dance aesthetics depend on the complexity of movement kinematics. Cognition, 205, 104446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104446.
     Google Scholar
  25. Palmer, S. E., & Griscom, W. S. (2013). Accounting for taste: Individual differences in preference for harmony. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 20(3), 453-461. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0355-2.
     Google Scholar
  26. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3.
     Google Scholar
  27. Rosenberg, C. (2000). Handbuch Jazz dance. Meyer & Meyer sports. German.
     Google Scholar
  28. Sato, N., Nunome, H., & Ikegami, Y. (2014). Key features of hip hop dance motions affect evaluation by judges. Journal of applied biomechanics, 30(3), 439-445. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.2013-0190.
     Google Scholar
  29. Sato, N., & Nunome, H. (2016). Key motion characteristics of side-step movements in hip-hop dance and their effect on the evaluation by judges. Sports Biomechanics, 15(2), 116-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2016.1158861.
     Google Scholar
  30. Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do People Prefer Curved Objects? Angularity, Expertise, and Aesthetic Preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.b.
     Google Scholar
  31. Song, J., Kwak, Y., & Kim, C. Y. (2021). Familiarity and Novelty in Aesthetic Preference: The Effects of the Properties of the Artwork and the Beholder. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.694927.
     Google Scholar
  32. Stevens, C.; Glass, R.; Schubert, E.; Chen, J. & Winskel, H. (2007). Methods for Measuring Audience Reactions. Proceedings of the inaugural International Conference on Music Communication Science, 155-158.
     Google Scholar
  33. Tinio, P. P., & Leder, H. (2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta psychologica, 130(3), 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.001.
     Google Scholar
  34. Torrents, C., Castañer, M., Jofre, T., Morey, G., & Reverter, F. (2013). Kinematic parameters that influence the aesthetic perception of beauty in contemporary dance. Perception, 42, 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7117.
     Google Scholar
  35. Vinken, P. M. (2022). Kinematic motion characteristics and observer’s expertise in perceived aesthetics of dance jumps. Research in Dance Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2022.2033714.
     Google Scholar
  36. Vinken, P.M. & Heinen T. (2022). How does the amount of movement and observer expertise shape the perception of motion aesthetics in dance? Human Movement, 23(2), 46–55; https://doi.org/10.5114/hm.2021.106170.
     Google Scholar
  37. Wessel-Therhorn, D. (1996). Jazz dance training. Meyer and Meyer. German.
     Google Scholar
  38. Winkelman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989.
     Google Scholar
  39. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848.
     Google Scholar