Sight or feel?

[David Bailey]

Inspired by the "connection" thread, which sense is most important to you in connecting with your partner?

I'm (clearly) in the "touch" camp, but I'd be interested in what others felt.

[ducasi]

Physical connection is too profound to just say "touch".

Sometimes the visual connection can overwhelm the physical connection in intensity, which can make for a mind-blowing dance.

Hard to say which is most important. Physical connection is very important, but the intensity possible in a visual connection is something you wouldn't want to miss out on.

Hmm... Probably touch wins with its essentiality, but I reserve the right to change my mind once I work out what it's actually thinking.

[Wouldbe]

Not sure who I'm agreeing with here, but for me it's the not-quite-touch. There's something about a mambo move, for example, where your footwork is in perfect synchronicity, without the knee-bumping, tug-of-war effect... you just know. Gives me that tingly feeling. I think I'd have exactly the same amount of enjoyment out of a dance where there was no physical contact, only close proximity, eye contact (very powerful) and telekinesis. (We'd look pretty stupid doing the catapult this way, though!) Does that make me a sight-biased person, neither touch nor sight, or a weirdo to keep as far away from as possible?!

[Caro]

being slowly landing from a couple of fantastic tangos, I have to say that 'touch' wins for me, a hundred times.
Sight can be extremely important too and add another dimension to a dance, but I can have a great connection with my partner with no sight involved (say in a tango close embrace, or if I just close my eyes), whereas the opposite is not quite so true - well, not in a dance context anyway.

[Ghost]

I can have a great connection with my partner with no sight involved (say in a tango close embrace, or if I just close my eyes), whereas the opposite is not quite so true - well, not in a dance context anyway.

I'm curious about this - are you saying that if you're being led slowly without physical contact you don't have a great connection? Or if you're both "playing" / improvising but without touching?

EDIT: To answer DJ's question - it depends on the person I'm dancing with.

[Caro]

I'm curious about this - are you saying that if you're being led slowly without physical contact you don't have a great connection?

I'm saying that connection won't be as great as one I can get through 'touch'. It just can't beat it, in my experience... but I'm happy to be proven wrong

Also maintaining that sort of connection (i.e. being lead through 'sight' only) is a lot more hard work than maintaining a great 'touch' connection - but that might be due to lack of practice, I admit. And there's also more interfering stuff to worry about, like balance (depending on what's 'sight' lead here, thinking of a tango 'invitation' exercise in particular - but generally speaking sight leading will lead slower 'moves' or changes of direction than normal leading, hence the balance issue).

[spindr]

"Once more with looking", or "Once more with feeling"?
Surely it's obvious, you need to dance with feeling

SpinDr

[Lynn]

being slowly landing from a couple of fantastic tangos, I have to say that 'touch' wins for me, a hundred times.
Sight can be extremely important too and add another dimension to a dance, but I can have a great connection with my partner with no sight involved (say in a tango close embrace, or if I just close my eyes), whereas the opposite is not quite so true - well, not in a dance context anyway.

I mostly dance AT with my eyes closed, which gives me the opportunity to focus the rest of my senses on the connection.

I've done the 'no contact' thing which obviously relies on sight, and the intensity of gaze thing (which I'm hopeless at).

Ideally though - both please!

[2Tone]

Most Definetley Touch !!!

[fletch]

Most Definetley Touch !!!

Welcome to the family

Lovely to see you yesterday

welcome to he forum have fun and keep posting

[Frankie_4711]

I voted 'touch' immediately, without hardly even thinking about it, because I love to dance with my eyes closed - not with just anyone, and obviously can't do it on a busy dancefloor - but it makes the whole experience so different ...

Then I withdrew my vote because I started thinking about the sight part, and how it can add so much to the dance ...

So now I'm just confused!

I think they are both important, but I'm going to go back and re-vote for 'touch', because I think you can have a lovely dance without the 'sight', but a dance needs to have that 'touch' element (or lack of it as Wouldbe described!) for it to work, so that is more important.

[Trouble]

a firm but deliberate and informative touch can send tingles all down my spine regardless of what or who im looking at.

For example connection is made for me when you can be guided by a hand on your back into sways, backsteps, forward steps and all from the finger touches on the small of your back or just below your shoulders. A lead that can do this is truly special and there arn't many i can tell you that.!

[Lory]

So now I'm just confused!

I think they are both important, but I'm going to go back and re-vote for 'touch',

I'm NOT going to vote, because to me, some dances, touch is definitely most important but in others, sight is...

In fun and cheeky dances, a smile, a wink, a raised eyebrow or even poking your tongue out, is what makes the dance! Its seeing eachothers facial expressions that makes it fun!

In other dances, such as Tango, it's all about the feel!

But I think the true skill, is being able to change your lead/follow to adapt to the mood of the music!

Edit... You can have an intense and passionate dance, with or without sight but I don't think you can have a 'fun' dance without sight!

[Freya]

Difficult one!

I think I'd have to go for touch, since someone can Touch you with out actually Touching Am I just being Pedantic now?

In fact thinking bout it! Touch is definately the way to go! Touch can be as light as a fingertip grazing the skin or as intense as an embrace! Are we still talking bout Dancing here?

[StokeBloke]

For me sight is more important than touch. By watching your partner carefully you can adapt and alter your lead/moves/style to blend and compliment with them. It also allows you to play with your follow far better. I'm sure I'll change my mind again by the end of the day.... but the aye's have it

[Freya]

Edit... You can have an intense and passionate dance, with or without sight but I don't think you can have a 'fun' dance without sight!

Actually I'm with Lory on this one!

Do I have to Choose? I can't! I'm greedy I want everything!

[Tiggerbabe]

I can't chose either. I'm big on touch, but one move that sends tingles down my spine (every time, without fail ) is all in the eyes

[SilverFox]

I always take a good look before having a feel....

[Feelingpink]

I voted for touch ... but with AT, unfortunately I seem to follow better if I keep my eyes open & watch the guy's chest.

[Caro]

Edit... You can have an intense and passionate dance, with or without sight but I don't think you can have a 'fun' dance without sight!

not true! Again, I'll take my example in tango, when the man manages to take control of your legs he can do some pretty fun stuff with them... like wrapping one around his own leg (how cheeky is that?), making one of your leg 'caress' the other in an up and down motion (think weight on right leg which is straight and left calf caressing the outside of the right leg from the ankle to the thigh... I'm sure it has a proper name, but I don't know it -rep to whoever can enlighten me - and that's pretty cool too). There can be no eye contact involved, but you can be sure that any of those will bring a big smile on my face! And I'd be surprised if the guy isn't smiling too (and I have photographic evidence to support that!)

But I agree to the stuff you said Lory, i.e. looks, winks, tongue out will definately bring another dimension to the dance...