What I 'see' doesn't have to be what you 'see'
There are many different ways you can see 'dance' I can see dance almost everywhere, when I look. How you ask? Well I believe it comes down to how much we want to see. I can see trees blowing in the wind and call it dance where as another may say its purely the reaction to the wind direction. But who can say one is right and the other is not, if we all thought the same how boring would it be, nothing to learn, discuss or discover.
For example If I created a piece of choreography based on 2 chairs and a women drinking a cup of tea, and a old lady walking from left to right behind her, many people would argue if it was 'dance choreography' or an installation or even if it's 'dance'. Im not saying understanding and being able to see dance in a different perspective is from being educated as my lectures at uni may love a piece of work and I may not thats down to individual opinions. I do think apperception is involved. As well as what people can understand and how much they want to take from whats being given to them.
If I was to pluck random people from all over the word and made them watch a several pieces of dance from all different styles, there would be a clear difference in data from what they preferred. Most members of the audience would prefer something with a narrative something easy to follow or something with repetitive movement less engaging but easier to understand. This is why pop music does so well, the everyday man can whistle a club track but instantly forget a jazz solo.
