zugzwang
boris said:
«I did a paper on my observations of DDR in an arcade and came to the conclusion that it was not dance. However what the people in some of these videos are doing is clearly dance…and technology».
anna asked:
«I’m interested to know what factors led you to conclude DDR wasn’t dance in your research. I agree that these videos show the ability of people to take a highly restrictive movement game and make it artful and idiosyncratic.»
i guess it is the fact that the observations were observations and situated in a particular context. part of situating and defining a form is understanding the process and well as the product (and principles). participating in the observed activity can help give a deeper understanding of the praxis. and we should always be aware of observer bias.
you can’t understand DDR only by what happens in arcades. the main competitions take place outside arcades, and people practice at home with dance pads. and, as i mentioned before, DDR fans practice a lot.
DDR is dance, even if you call it a «dance game» or «dance sport» as it based on choreography. DDR may not produce good dance or good dancers but it is dance. more so it is dance because the game is not restrictive, other than spatially (you have to step on the pads). the game affords a huge amount of artistic and creative freedom. that is how and why the DDR craze established itself.
DDR is very simple technology, it is notation technology with feedback for correct timing and placement. yet it does not teach dance skills per se, you have to apply your own. DDR can help you develop a subset of basic dance skills (rhythm, learning & recalling step patterns).
i know lots of people who play singstar who are not professional, or amateur singers. but most of them would never sing at a karaoke, and none of them would dream about joining a choir or taking singing lessons.