There’s a multitude of parallels to be drawn between political governance models, and choreographic systems. Most of, very unflattering to the prevailing methodologies, practices and processes in both the historic and contemporary dance fields.
The Problem
Enough to observe the predominant prerequisite expected from dancers, to grasp the severity of the problem - the erasure of any sort of personal identity traits, aimed at turning dancers into empty vessels, ready to absorb and therefore become proficient at being physical copies or clones of sorts, of a certain technique and style, or worse, of an individual maker’s personal way of being, moving and doing,
The process of eliminating personal identity, be it that of individuals, minority groups, or societies as a whole, has always been the go to strategy of any form of tyrannical regime throughout history, as it is always seen as a threat to centralized power and control. Be it languages spoken, religious practices, specific texts, ceremonial traditions and even clothes and costumes specific to certain groups (the Scotish kilt, banned for decades in Scotland and punishable by law if worn or exhibited, is just one example). The need to limit, eliminate, censor and eradicate differences, identity features, practices and symbols, in order to create an homogenous mass, thus reducing to the maximum the manifestations of differences, unique identity traits and expressions of self sovereignty, in favor of a more manageable, homogenous, maniable and easily controlled group of people, is the starting point to every tyrannical regime that has ever existed.
Coercion, manipulation, censorship, punishment, brainwashing, fear mongering, gaslighting, the elimination of personal responsibility and accountability, infringement on free speech (movement IS speech), abolishment of property rights (one’s own body and movement ARE private property), enforced equality of outcome (copy me perfectly and then do it in unison) etc, are all covert or outright direct and exposed forms of violence, used in the pursuit of the centralization and maximization of power and control. These systems have an existential need to centralize in order to function, making it the easiest way to be able to identify them. Centralization in choreographic works, usually manifest simply through the fact that everyone on stage or in the studio, looks the same, moves the same, thinks the same, performs the same, feels the same to the external eye.
Here comes the tricky part though, even where least expected, like with improvisation based techniques, live choreography practices etc, even when actual copying of movement material generated by the choreographer isn’t part of the process, where tasks based or collaborative creative processes are used, it is hardly enough in of itself to guaranty that the core motivation, isn’t the centralization of the system, process and outcome. As pointed above, this will eventually be visible clearly through the emergence of that same-hood of everything and everyone.
When it comes to dance making and the choreographic art form, these strategies are more often than not, the norm. The blind spot regarding this phenomenon, especially when one is familiar with the official discourse in the field, is gigantic.
The fact that almost no one in the dance world, is outraged by the reality where 99% of dance education and pedagogical models, are mostly based on training students in obeying, copying, the erasure of physical self identity for the sole purpose of becoming proficient in logics of transcription, reproduction and imitation (always coming with the carrot in the form of personal ‘interpretation’, as if dancing through one’s own body is anything like playing notes someone else came up with, using a musical instrument. Musical notes, being simply different frequencies, unlike the individual, subjective, private human body, do not belong to anyone but nature, so the entire notion of interpretation as we know it in music, can not be even remotely applied to dance and the subjectivity of the moving body), the emphasis put on shutting any form of access to decision making and the overall expectation from dancers to simply lay aside anything that defines them as individuals, so they are empty enough to be able to copy, emulate and execute the information imposed by individuals designated as authority figures by yet again, a centralized system, is nothing short of astounding.
The hidden incentives structure underlying the entire educational sphere in the dance world, is such, that it is a miracle that some students manage to retain their integrity, identity and sense of self sovereignty after traversing these re-education institutions.
Suffice to step into almost any dance school, academy, conservatoire, training program etc, and confront the students with the need to determine their own ideas about movement, decision making, choreographic vision, performative approches and so on, in order to observe the massive shock this request engenders in them, just to realize how the option to operate as thinking, self sovereign individuals within a choreographic context, was never proposed to them. And no, improvisation techniques are not that. If anything, they’re a form of distraction, masking the fact these students were striped from anything resembling meaningful free choice.
Aligning with this way of looking at things, challenges the legitimacy of more than 90% of choreographic works ever made. It is a paradigm shift so deep, it requiers letting go of almost everything that has been developed throughout decades and centuries of practicing and thinking about the choreographic question, the role of the choreographer, and that of dancers.
Seen through this filter, most choreographic works on display, are unaware yet perfect visualisation of tyrannical governance models. The fact that this goes unseen and unnoticed, is a testament to the level of readership into the choreographic medium, and the inability of most viewers to deduct what type of systems, processes and tools were used, just by looking at the works themselves, what they do, how they behave and how most times, this has absolutely nothing to do with what their makers declare in the program notes.
Leaving moral and ethical questions aside, what is bluntly obvious is, that totalitarian governance models (explicit and intentional, or unaware of their own nature) are inefficient on the long run, produce low quality results and are bound to fail eventually.
Very much like in the natural world, so in human made systems, political or artistic - organic complexity, efficiency, growth, prosperity, innovation, evolution, are always the result of decentralized, un interfered with, self regulating, organically functioning networks. Choreographic systems are no different. Centrally planned and imposed choreography, just like tyrannical governance models, are always, simplistic, coercive and destructive in nature. They are founded on the striping down of individual responsibility, and as a result, individual free choice and therefore, will always produce a defected outcome. Not because they are unfair (that too), but mostly because they are not aligned with how things are, which makes them dysfunctional in the long run.
Being a (mental) slave is of course not the best of options, but on the other hand, it makes for a very simple existence. A slave status means no freedom of choice, but implies no responsibility besides obedience, which is always secured through coercion and fear anyway.
Freedom though, is a lesson in responsibility and therefor, requires a totaly different type of engagement and commitment to everything a free existence implies. It calls on the dancer’s presence and responsibility in pretty much the same way it does so for the choreographer.
This duality, can be observed clearly in the context of dance making, where the option of (a mostly transparent) artistic ‘slavery’ for dancers, is much more common than its counterparty. In many ways, it makes life easier for everyone in the short run, but it’s clearly destructive long term for everyone, including the art form itself.
Keeping in mind that dance as a form of art in the west, what is knows as ballet, which origins can be traced back to Italian renaissance, and that by late 17th century was adopted and codified under Louis XIV who founded the Académie Royale de Musique (the Paris Opera) within which emerged the first professional theatrical ballet company, the Paris Opera Ballet, was very much a product of aristocratic courts and royalty pastime, as it was royal money that dictated the ideas, literature and music used in ballets that were created to primarily entertain the aristocrats of the time. And so regardless of how un natural the fifth position is to most people, it became a fundamental of what a dancing technique IS in the west and well beyond. And so here we are hundreds of years later forcing this anomaly on kids, most of which are paying a big price for it later on in life, as a result of following a totally random instruction which is clearly unhealthy, and that has absolutely nothing to do with dance or movement to begin with.
The interesting thing about ballet though, is that regardless of its origins, it is in many ways an open source protocol, not owned by or linked directly to one artist, and therefore, open to anyone who wishes to use it and contribute to its development over time. Just like the English language, or any other language for that matter, even though it has clear, strict and agreed upon grammar rules, it is still an open source protocol that never stops changing and evolving organically over time, without any central point of authority able to direct, restrict and control these changes and updates. William Forsythe building upon classical ballet technique and catapulting it into contemporary relevance, is exactly that.
Just to be clear, I have nothing against ballet, which I find absolutly fascinating as a technology for understanding and mapping movement and the moving body. The underlying, hidden layers though of the ballet world, those unrelated to ballet technique itself, but more to the hierarchical models of governance and the nature of the creative process, what it assumes as being the dancer’s role and as a result, that of the choreographer, all of which were very much adopted from and influenced by the existing political and societal structures, norms and conventions within aristocratic and royal circles of the time, have gone down the generations almost untouched.
All this isn’t so surprising. People and societies have a need to hold on to things as reference points, in order to generate a sense of safety, stability, security, continuity and meaning. What is mind-blowing though, is the fact that after centuries of dramatic evolution and changes to the social and political norms, the radical shift in the way western societies are organized and governed, with the abundance of philosophical, political, theoretical and practical bagages modern civilization finds itself with today around these questions, it is as if non of that has penetrated the dance world. And so we find ourselves in 2025, with tyrannical creative models, completely unaware of their own true nature, as a legitimate form of artistic process, without anyone daring to point to the fact that there’s an inherent problem about it all (not to say it has anything to do with the fact these artists can at the same time be very nice, inspiring, tolerant, talented individuals, doing what they do with the outmost best intentions). That what is still mostly asked of and expected from dancers, wouldn’t be accepted in any other realm of our modern societies. Just because that’s the way it is and has always been, doesn’t mean it’s not complete madness.
The contemporary dance world, will of course claim that we have moved very far away from these old models, and to prove it, will point to how different things look and the motivations behind the creative process, which have clearly evolved continuously. The problem is, that a deep dive into most processes within the contemporary dance scene, shows that the changes are mostly of a superficial nature, touching only the appearance of things and how they are defined. In terms of the actual logics, structural nature and inner workings of these systems, almost nothing has changed.
The Solution
The notion that choreography can and should be a permission-less, open source protocol for dancers to be able to build upon as self sovereign individuals, is so at odds with the prevailing notion itself of what choreography is, that it almost sounds like an insane idea. Yet once looked at with unbiased and unconditioned eyes, there’s nothing more obvious and simple than this fundamental truth. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
Going along with the current norms in the dance world, is as a lunacy, as advocating for tyranny as a political governance model might sound, to anyone that isn’t trying to actually impose one on other people.
Accepting the reality that, since the subject matter of choreography is people, individuals, actual living human beings, and therefore it can not operate in the same manner as other art forms who are working with inanimate objects, abstract ideas, colours, words, 2D imagery or sounds, implies that the choreographer’s role is much closer to that of a facilitator, focused on the development of optimal platform-like networks that are in service of the individuals who use them, rather than the other way around - using dancers for the production of imposed subjective content, as a form of self-expression tied to one artist alone.
Realizing that choreography making is much closer to studying and developing governance models one believes are best for individuals, groups and society as a whole, than it is a tool for telling one’s own private story, is the most important and burning educational project the field of choreography making faces nowadays, if it wishes to retain any sort or relevancy in a changing world.
The question itself - What Is Choreography? - needs to be turned on its head.
It is as if the accepted, conventional definition of what being as artist is, doesn’t apply when it comes to the choreographic art form. One can see it or not, accept it or not, it doesn’t change anything, since human beings, and the nature of all things, are simply what they are. That part of the equation, is not negotiable.
In earlier phases of my journey inside the choreographic thing, I used to see it and define it as the difference between vertical and horizontal systems, being the core element of the question at hand. I have now come to believe, that the choreographic process has inherent vertical aspects that cannot be overlooked or denied. The need to determine the structure and logic of how the choreographic system operates, is vertical by definition. It remains with the choreographer alone, to make those choices. Yet the motivation behind these decisions, the ones that generate and shape the system at play, the incentives structure it brings about, the values it upholds and pushes to the front, must all be considered by looking at the people who will be operating within it, with the realization that the artistic quality and value of the work itself, is directly linked to the quality of opportunities and potentials it holds for them.
The main responsibilities of the choreographer then, are to try and come up with an optimal protocol for the choreographic operating system, and then, to make sure that dancers understand it deeply and accept their side of the thing and the responsibilities it confronts them with. Not an easy task, since, going back to the start of this essay, most dancers were trained in passive obedience in the form of ‘dancing’, rather than active engagement with decision making and personal responsibility.
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 and unnecessary.
Centralized systems assume a zero sum game, where the time and energy put in by dancers, are a finite resource to be extracted and exploited for the maker’s needs. Decentralized systems, being collaborative in nature, look at the question of ressources as a positive sum game, where everyone’s investment in the form of time and energy, brings about a synergic like outcome in terms of value, which is bigger than the sum of all ressources contributed to start with, leaving everyone with more than what they came in with.
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.
Decentralized choreographic models the way I see it, are a superior artistic technology to the norm being centralized ones. Simply because they answer better most of the questions related to their immediate users - the dancers and as a consequence, the audience.
Like any new superior technology, it is disruptive to the current state of things, to the existing power structure benefiting from things staying as they are and to the individuals invested in the old ways of doing things. But the nature of evolution is, that new, better models, make the existing one obsolete and end up replacing them.
I believe we are at the dawn of a massive shift towards decentralized models, systems, protocols and practices in every aspect of human lives. More broadly, the way we organize ourselves as individuals, is hopefully about to change. Not because it’s what most people want - sadly, most people are usually quite happy remaining in a state of mental slavery - but because this change is inevitable and will manifest itself through the natural process of the evolution of ideas and practices.
This shift will not skip the dance world and the art of choreography. The sooner more people start asking this type of questions, the sooner this happens.
As someone already pointed out - “if a choreographer steps into the studio, starts moving and expect you to copy, leave the room”. Or at least, ask them WHY?, then watch what happens
