Complexity

Complexity is always the result of a decentralized, un interfered with, organically functioning network.

Choreographic complexity is no different.

Centrally planned and imposed choreography, is always, simplistic in nature.

Energy

Energy can’t be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another.

In that sense, choreographies serve as transformers of human energy.

The quality of a choreographic work, is tied to its ability to maximize its conductivity properties, so when dancer’s energy is transformed through space and time by the choreographic thing, it compresses and appreciates rather than deflates and depreciates.

In other words, it’s not about how hard the dancers are working and how much energy they put in, it’s about how efficient the choreographic system is in  harnessing, compressing, channelling and directing their energy, while it’s transforming it into its artistic state.

Shorts

Choreographies should aim to align people to the best in human nature, rather than the worst.

>>>

The choreographic question, isn’t a personal one, but rather, it is a structural, systemic one. Choreography, is the study of social structures and human made systems.

>>>

Choreography making shouldn’t be coming from a place of - these people will do whatever I tell them to do, but more from a place of - what system can I put in place, that will be the best for the prosperity and well being of everyone involved, while pushing and challenging them to the maximum.

>>>

The artistic value of the choreographic thing, is closely linked to the quality of the human system it allows for.

>>>

The purpose of a choreographic thing, is what it DOES.

>>>

The reason you cannot USE dancers to tell your story in the same way you can with words, objects, sounds or colors, is because dancers have their own stories to tell.

>>>

Choreographies should be accretion focused systems.

>>>

Politics are downstream of culture, which is downstream of art. When art comments on politics, it misunderstands is position in the food-chain of civilization.

>>>

Choreography forces the makers to determine the balance they’re comfortable with, regrading the following question:

To what extent, the process is determined by the maker’s decisions, and on the other hand, how much of the choreographer’s decisions, are actually determined by the process itself.

>>>

Choreography is the recognition and study of emergent patterns.

>>>

Choreography is a reactor. Human action is its fuel. The goal is to reach the most energy-efficient system possible.

>>>

To learn choreography-making, is to learn what not to do, what not to say, when not to interfere, when to stay out of dancer’s way while carefully looking.

>>>

Choreographies brake mostly at the seams.

>>>

Everything is about everything else, as long as it’s clear.

The concept in which one makes a thing about whatever other specific thing, is somewhat anti-art.

>>>

Naturally emergent consensus within a groups of dancers, is one of the most powerful choreographic tools.

>>>

Choreography is governed by the immutable laws of nature and the physical reality of the universe. The makers opinions and ideas, can’t change that fundamental truth.

They can only try and ignore it (impossible), or accept, study and align with it.

>>>

Choreography is a truth machine, regardless of the choreographer’s intentions. Human action, in a choreographic context, is a X-ray of the civilisation, culture, society and artists it is the product of.

>>>

Choreographing, is LOOKING.

>>>

Choreographies need to be stubborn on their vision, yet flexible on their content.

>>>

Choreographies don't mind changes and changing, only people do.

>>>

Using choreography for (one person's) story telling, is like using the entire world's electrical grid for powering one lamp. Choreographies are grid like entities, enabling the storing, channelling and sharing of free flowing human energy.

>>>

choreography can't become what it needs to be, by remaining what it is.

>>>

choreographic work, as well as all of its components, must remain a permanent draft. Being a living thing, carried out by living beings, and happening through real time, it can never be a 'finished' entity.

Nothing which is finished, is alive.

>>>

Meaning can't be deliberately created or brought about. The only thing choreography can do, is the creation of conditions, which allow for the emergence of meanings.

>>>

Man made systems and processes, are inherently related to questions of ethics and morality. Choreographies in that sense, can be viewed as visualisations of ethical and moral inquiries and stand points.

>>>

Being a choreographer is a mix between developing an ideal governance model for people, while managing and leading a specific group of individuals with the aim of pushing it to its highest potential.

It’s like trying to write a constitution for a new utopic republic, while coaching a football team.

Most areas overlap, some don’t.

>>>

If you want to know what a specific choreography is about, look at what it does, not at what it claims it is.

>>>

If a choreography is well engineered, It will exert itself on the dancers operating within it. It will bring to bear the multitude of outcomes it was designed to allow for and produce. The choreographic thing is the source, the operating system, not the outcome.

>>>

Bad ideas spread through force, coercion, corruption, manipulation, violence and indifference. Good ideas, spread naturally. Good ideas though, as they are often disruptive to the existing power structure, will be violently fought against by anyone who has what to lose as a result of their adoption.

Artistic ideas are no different.

>>>

I don't set out to make work which is ABOUT something. I want to make work that IS a thing.

In/De

Choreographies are either inflationary, or they are deflationary.

They either create spaces of scarcity and lack, or they bring about abundance.

Problem/Solution

Choreographic models, processes, strategies and methodologies, should be looked at as SOLUTIONS to the problems of human societies. Otherwise, they’re part of the problem.

Input/Output

The work isn’t about controlling the output, it’s about studying the input.

Choreographic proceses cannot be led by their visual manifestation. The visual outcome, can only be an unintentional result of a process based on completely different aspects of the work.

It is not about how it looks, it’s about - why is it doing what it does?

This or That

Choreographies are either extractive based systems, or they are cooperative ones.

Centrally controlled systems are extractive by nature, which means they are coercion based by default.

Decentralized systems, being that they are voluntary to start with, are cooperative by nature, making coercion and central control inefficient.   

Decentralized systems are about unleashing the combined potential of all of the participants towards a shred goal, to the benefit of everyone involved.

The future of choreography making, is tightly linked to its ability to abandon its historical legacy as an extractive, coercive, centrally controlled practice, and adopt new, decentralized models.

Principles

Choreographic makers, do not DEVELOP choreographic principles. All they can do, is DISCOVER existing ones.

Choreographies are manifestation of that which is already in existence. No one gets to invent natural laws, nor the nature of human beings.

Stay humble - all you get to do, is study what is already there.

People/Natural Law

Being that space/time are its main fields of reference, Choreography, is a study into natural law.

Yet choreographies, are comprised of people. People are comprised of emotions, instincts, intuition, ideas, opinions, habits, needs and so on.

Choreography then, is the social engineering of the convergence space between natural law and humans.

Rules/Freedom

The paradoxical manner in which rules based systems work is, that if you adhere to the rules, the realm of freedom increases rather than decreases. Systems governed by a well structured set of rules, are the reversal of constraints.

Ethos

One option for a unifying ethos for the choreographic process can be: Choreographies are strategies for individual, voluntary, yet joint agreement on patterns of movement towards a shared goal.

Irreversible

The concept of irreversibility, points to that of time itself.

Human action, is energy and unfolding time intertwined.

Choreographies happening, are irreversible events. There isn’t the option to correct the choreographic thing as it’s happening. Choreographies are time passing itself.   

Irreversibility means consequence, which points to the notion of accountability.

Therefore, choreographies are people managing consequences and accountability in real time.

Selection Vs. Choice

Selection and choice are not the same thing.

Choreography, has to offer access to choice, rather than the limited premise of selection.

Selection breads expediency, which regresses the entire system to a mangble medium where everybody has effective neutrality, whereas choice, implies a system which doesn’t try to micromanage or control its own outcome.

Selection, is a form of manipulation, giving the appearance of choice, while actually limiting it in order to control the outcome.

Selection is the sly roundabout tool of centralized systems. Choice, is the default strategic approach of decentralized, permission-less systems.

For this to happen, the choreographer has to accept what most makers are reluctant to even look at:

The fact that until the ego is eclipsed by one’s subservience to both the choreographic process and the dancers who use it, one cannot lead in a meaningful, moral and productive manner.

Choreographic Equilibrium

Equilibrium is an emerging phenomenon.

Choreographies, the process of creating them, but also their singular renditions, are the happening of and the  visualisation of that ongoing movement towards and out of equilibrium.

The work then, is about trying to asses at any given moment the directional quality of the choreographic event, as in - is it moving towards equilibrium, or away from it.

The emergent nature of the equilibrium phenomenon, is the reason why central planning and control of the choreographic outcome, are by essence, anti-choreography.

Free speech and Private property through the choreographic lens

Free speech and the notion of private property, as fundamental, natural, human rights, have emerged throughout the evolution of western civilization thinking as the bedrocks of freedom and individual sovereignty.

Whenever societies have come to respect and protect these two by law, they have seen unprecedented flourishing, innovation and progress.

Free speech, or the right to free expression, involves the right to exercise one’s ideas and identity without infringement and is intrinsically tied to the notion of property rights. The two go hand in hand and whenever one of those is limited, controlled or banned, the other cannot be sustained.

The practice of using dancers as “empty vessels” who execute a choreographers’ vision, can be seen as a form of creative censorship, an infringement upon their personal “property” suppressing their creative capital and undermining their freedom of expression, resulting in curbing personal initiative, stifling both creative capital and free speech, while transforming dancers into tools rather than sovereign contributors.

Much as private property rights fosters political, social and economic freedoms, dancers’ creative autonomy, enhances artistic freedom and nurtures authentic expression.

The choreographic process should be approached as a dynamic exchange, a marketplace of creative ideas, enriched by the interplay of voices. Instead of a top-down imposition; it can become an open-ended dialogue, an expressive, adaptive and human-centered process.

A choreographer’s willingness to allow dancers to retain their “property” and free speech within the process, promotes a more authentic, living choreography, rooted in respect for individual creativity as an essential form of personal property.

For that to happen, makers need to look upon the choreographic medium, not as a finite product aimed at harnessing the creative process as a vehicle for telling specific stories (their own or others), promoting agendas, expressing specific messages or enslaving it to esthetic ideals, but rather, as an organic, free market like system, which optimizes the quality of the exchanges it enables, while remaining inherently indifferent to their content.

In that sense, equality of outcome and freedom, are mutually exclusive.

Whenever dancers in a specific work all seem to follow a similar external authority, be it in their vocabulary, movement style, performative strategies, or even the manner in which they approach decision making, it is always the result of censorship on both their artistic property and free speech.

Great art is always about nothing in particular, which is what allows it to be of and about everyone and everything. But for this to exist within a choreographic context, the notions of private property and free speech must be embedded deeply into the fabric of the choreographic process.

“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”

Friedrich August von Hayek

Price Discovery and Stock-to-Flow Ratio: Looking at the Question of Artistic Value, Through Economic Analogies

In both economics and the art world, the process of determining value isn’t based on objective, constant, universal units of measurement, which renders the analogy between the two fields surprisingly instructive.

Unlike other fields of human endeavor, where the units of measurement used are grounded in natural laws (weight, length, pressure, temperature etc), the value of art is inherently subjective and fluid. Quality and value in these other fields, are tied to measurement units which are objective, constant and therefore produce objectively  measurable and predictable results. In both art and economics, value is determined through complex, human-driven interactions and processes, but in both fields, the ideal of a truly “free market”—where value, is discovered through unregulated interactions—is often disrupted by intermediaries and authorities whose decisions shape and sometimes distort organic dynamics.

The growing confusion in the art world regarding the notions of quality and value, has grown so big, it seems almost as if that is the natural state of things.

This essay uses two key economic concepts: ‘price discovery’ and ‘stock-to-flow ratio’, to try and understand how we have arrived at a place where poor art can be considered to have value, and vice-versa. Exploring these parallels might offer an insight into how external forces, which have distorted the otherwise organic, self-correcting and self-regulating mechanisms of value emergence, have resulted in an oversaturated and confused art world.

In economics, price discovery refers to the process by which the market determines the price of a good or service through the interaction of buyers and sellers. Prices reflect a mixture of tangible factors like scarcity and demand, as well as intangible ones such as perceived utility, originality or prestige. This process is often seen as the product of a free market where value is revealed through organic competition, interaction and negotiation.

In art, a parallel process exists for determining artistic value, through a complex web of interactions between artists, critics, curators, and the public. However, much like with governments and central banks’ role as regulators, the art world is often subject to the tastes, agendas and judgments of curators, critics, bureaucrats and art institutions, who act as gatekeepers or regulators of sorts, significantly influencing what is considered valuable. Over time, this value, which is anything but static and is continuously renegotiated and reinterpreted by the actors involved, gets increasingly distorted, becoming a reflection of institutional and political priorities.

In both art and economics, gatekeepers and intermediaries play a crucial role in value determination. In economics, central banks, regulators, and governments’ interventions disrupt natural price discovery by manipulating interest rates, setting prices control, introducing subsidies or inflating currency’s supply through quantitative easing. These actions impact assets’ values artificially, leading to bubbles, market inefficiencies and even economic crises. Similarly, in the art world, curators, critics, and government cultural agencies, disrupt the organic emergence of artistic value. By deciding which artists receive funding, which works are exhibited, or which genres are promoted, these actors influence the perception of what is deemed “important” or “worthy of attention,” while crafting narratives around its cultural, social, or political significance and more often than not, dictating the terms by which an artwork is judged.

The rise of cultural bureaucracies that provide subsidies to certain types of art and certain groups of artists, further distorts this landscape, creating a system where value is often imposed from the top down rather than emerging from public demand or organic market and social dynamics.

Rather than allowing value to emerge organically, these gatekeepers impose their own esthetic or intellectual preferences, elevating certain artists while marginalizing others. A feedback loop is created where the value of a work is no longer tied to its intrinsic qualities or popular appeal but is instead determined by its alignment with institutional trends or theories, promoted by the art establishment.

Both in the art world and in economics, the interventions of gatekeepers often lead to the creation of artificial markets. In the art world, government agencies and cultural bureaucrats play a crucial role in deciding which artistic endeavors can thrive and which remain underfunded or ignored. Bureaucrats often prioritise certain artistic genres or political messages, skewing the artistic landscape, creating a disconnect between the broader public and the art that is being promoted or exhibited. Art that resonates with certain communities may be overlooked or underfunded because it doesn’t align with the narratives or criteria of gatekeepers, while artists who adapt to these criteria may thrive as a result of blatant favoritism even if their work is of low quality, or lacks widespread cultural relevance. Artists, in turn, tailor their work to fit the criteria of funding institutions, resulting in the loss of originality as a fundamental artistic component, the overrepresentation of specific types of art and the marginalisation of others.

This process is analogous to the economic world, where regulators and governments create distortions by intervening in the free market. For instance, subsidies to specific industries or fiscal policies designed to protect particular sectors can result in market inefficiencies and the artificial inflation of certain sectors. Just as an inflated value for an artwork might not reflect its cultural significance, artificially propped-up industries may not reflect true market value. Both in art and economics, top-down intervention leads to misallocation of resources and a disconnection from organic value creation.

The parallel between price discovery in economics and value emergence in the art world reveals a shared vulnerability to distortion by intermediaries. Whether it’s regulators and central banks shaping the economy, or  bureaucrats, curators and critics defining the art world’s taste, external interventions frequently skew the free flow of artistic capital and the organic processes of value creation. In both spheres, value is not merely a product of market demand or public appreciation but is subject to the decisions of those in power. While it is tempting to assume that value should emerge organically, the reality is that gatekeepers—whether in the form of curators or economic regulators—play a powerful role in shaping how value is perceived and distributed.

This process is described and examined in detail, in the Austrian School of economics’ critique of centralized intervention in markets. Thinkers like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard argue that government manipulation of markets disrupts the natural order of supply and demand, diverting the process of value discovery away from what is truly meritorious or desired by the public.

To deepen this analogy, another concept from the world of economics worth looking at is the stock-to-flow ratio, which is an economic metric used to measure the scarcity of a commodity. Stock refers to the existing supply, while flow refers to the new supply entering the market. Commodities with a high stock-to-flow ratio (like gold) are seen as more valuable because their existing supply is stable and difficult to inflate. In contrast, commodities with low ratios (like wheat or oil) are more subject to fluctuations in value because they are more easily produced.

In the art world, one can draw a similar comparison. Historically, art was created by a relatively small number of highly skilled individuals, and the demand for their work was relatively high, giving art a high stock-to-flow ratio. The number of artists producing work (the “flow”) was relatively low, so the “stock” of great art remained scarce. This scarcity conferred value upon individual artists and their works, allowing them to hold significant cultural, political, economic, and social importance. However, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the modern state, mainly through the industrialization of art schools and academies, the number of artists and artworks has grown exponentially. Art education became more accessible, and art production exploded, lowering the stock-to-flow ratio of art. While this democratization of artistic creation might seem like a positive development, it has also led to an oversaturation of the art market. As more and more artists emerge and more works (the majority of which is bound to be mediocre) flood the market, the intrinsic quality and value of art, as a unique cultural product, have both diminished.

This parallels the argument in Austrian economics, that artificially expanding the supply of a commodity—whether through government printing of money or overproduction—devalues it. In the same way that expanding the money supply through central banking leads to inflation, expanding the number of artists and artworks has diluted the significance of individual contributions, creating a cultural inflation of sorts, followed by an inevitable decline in artistic quality.

As both Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek observed, markets are driven by human action and subjective values, meaning that both economics and the arts are fundamentally tied to the human element. The dynamics of value in both spheres are determined not by inherent worth alone, but by perception, scarcity, and the interaction of social forces. When external entities—be they central banks or cultural institutions—intervene, the organic discovery of value becomes distorted.

The parallels between the overproduction of art and the overproduction of money help explain why we find ourselves in an era where it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between “good” and “bad” art. Just as monetary inflation erodes the purchasing power of money, the cultural inflation of art and artists, has eroded our ability to recognise artistic excellence. Where once great artists were able to command attention and resources due to their unique contributions to society, today’s artists operate in an oversaturated market where value is increasingly dictated by trends, funding priorities, and institutional gatekeeping. The more art that is produced, the harder it becomes for any individual work to stand out, diluting the overall cultural value of art in society.

The economic concepts of price discovery and the stock-to-flow ratio provide a powerful analogy for understanding the decline of artistic value in modern societies. Similarly to how centralised intervention disrupts price discovery; the regulators and gate keepers of the art world, tamper with the organic process of artistic value emergence, and just as government’s intervention and manipulation of money and the markets in economics can lead to inflation and devaluation; the explosion of art production in the modern era has diluted the intrinsic worth of both art and artists, and as a result, we live in a time where artistic value tends to be artificially imposed rather than emerging organically.

Rather than allowing for a free, decentralized market of artistic ideas and propositions, to naturally offer individual artists the reward for their work as valued by the others they serve, the current system determines value, and therefore reward, in a manner which is highly dependent on political obedience and connections. In a reality where the majority of art and artists are unable to generate real artistic value, the reward cannot be based on art itself, and so it is bound to be based on obedience and politics.

Looking at the art world through the lens of economics, its different schools of thought and its real world manifestations, provides some valuable insights and might help understand certain dynamics that otherwise, might seem as if they’re simply how things are, where as in reality, they are a direct consequence of a specific system and its operating code.  One can argue that what has happened to art in the past hundred years or so, is the same thing that happened to every other aspect of human societies in that time period, as a result of the emergence of the Fiat standard as a monetary technology, and how it has changed every aspect of modern life. What we find ourselves with today, is Fiat art, just like we have Fiat education systems, Fiat Health systems, Fiat Food, Fiat politics, Fiat science, Fiat wars and so on.

The challenge then, is to recognize these distortions and seek a shift to a more authentic system for governing the art world, where scarcity, excellence, merit, and public appreciation play a larger role in balancing these influences, in order to allow for a more authentic representation of value.

Trying to imagine what type of art and artists would emerge in a less regulated and centrally controlled environment, is as exciting as it is depressing in view of the current state of things. But it is essential, even as a thought experiment, to try and envision a future where art and artists are evolving outside the gridlock created by the bureaucratic and political apparatus of the art world.