The game of football, is probably one of the most popular set of rules ever invented by humans. Its adoption in the free marketplace of human ideas and practices, is unprecedented. There isn’t a place on the planet, where a massive amount of people of all ages and backgrounds, isn’t either playing it, watching it, or invested in it in different manners: professionally, as amateurs, fans, through media coverage, business related activities etc.
The quality of the idea at the base of the game of football, is undeniable. The numbers are staggering and serve as a proof.
That being said, not all football matches are the same. The range of volatility related to the outcome and objective quality of specific football matchs, is extremely high, as can be observed with how specific matches became historical landmarks, cited, analyzed and referred to decades after their happening, while others, can be so insignificant that they are forgotten the second they end. But also, football matches can be interesting, dramatic, and produce value in completely different ways and for totally different reasons, which is what makes football such a compelling thing in the first place.
The undeniable quality and value of the concept itself of the game of football, is totally separate from all the possible outcomes of each specific football match. In fact, this range of infinite possible outcomes, is built into the underlying DNA of the game. It is fundamental to what makes it exiting and appealing to begin with.
Football is of course just one example of a human made rules based system, among many others. Chess, poker, the English language, the stocks exchange, the roads grid with its rules for driving etc, all these, are systems based on sets of rules, who were developed and adopted over time and through emerging consensus, by enough people in order to become identifiable and accepted spaces for different types of human interaction. They all share that one predominant trait, of being a space which generates potentials for action, always in relations to how people will engage with them each and every time they choose to do so.
Choreographies, or more accurately, a certain type of choreographic works (the one which is rules based and therefore not made as a reproducible object, but more as a space where a living thing can take place), are pretty much the same.
A choreographic work, can generate totally different outcomes in terms of atmosphere, content, emergent narratives etc. There should be an inherent volatility in play, regarding each specific performance of the same work. This volatility, or variability, isn’t a bug, but rather, it is a feature of organically living systems, which are volatile by nature. Trying to fix and control their outcome, literally kills them.
And so when asked what is the work about? The accurate answer would be, well, I have no idea, we have to wait and see.
The only thing pre determined when it comes to choreography the way I see it, is the HOW. The WHAT, the WHY, the ABOUT, are all elements which emerge from the thing as it is happening. Asking what a choreographic work is about, is like asking ‘what is the score?’, before a football match started. Trying to define what a living thing is, restricts its ability to evolve into becoming all possible things.
One of the deepest misunderstandings regarding choreography as a unique art form, comes from its historical submission to theater. Many aspects of how choreography is understood and practiced, come from different forms of imitation and adoption of practices related to classical theater. When one goes to watch a new production of Romeo and Juliette, one knows before even entering the theater, how the story will unfold. the entire goal of yet another rendition of this play, is related to the means of the dramaturgical representation, rather than the actual content. The focus of traditional theater, is on how to tell an existing story in a new and original manner, as the story itself, its purpose, the underlying ideas etc, are already clearly defined.
Dance, and consequently choreography, has traditionally fallen into the trap of thinking along pretty much the same lines, while largely ignoring the fact that the choreographic mechanisms of content creation, are nothing remotely resembling those of theater. In that sense, choreography resembles much more a football match, than it does a theater play being performed. This deviation from what choreography is, can’t be more visible then in your typical program notes, literally telling the spectator what they are about to see, what the work is about and what they should be ‘getting’ from watching it. All this, before the dancers even entered the stage, which is as ridiculous as a program describing an about to happen football match.
Hence the problem with the question, ‘what is it about?’.
Understanding this, can be fundamentally liberating for makers, and as a result, can spare the field from having to deal with an endless amount of works, who are clearly about something, but are inherently nothing in choreographic terms. Works who are variations on theater making, much more than they are choreographically driven and thus, dilute the notion itself of the choreographic art form.
One way of doing this, would be to stop using the question ‘what is it about?’, and replace it with ‘how are you working?’. ‘What does your process look like?’ and so on.
A choreographic work, when used as a tool to present an external idea, tell an existing story, illustrate a concept, push an agenda and so on, has the same value a football match with a predetermined score does. Non whatsoever.
It negates the actual nature of the choreographic game as a singular manifestation of real time occurrences, bottom-top emergence rather than top- bottom organization and a generator of outcomes, which can be widely different each and every time it is taking place.
The way in which we grow to KNOW things, is over time. We know what the game of football is, because we got to experience millions, if not billions, of different football matches each with their unique unfolding and outcome. In the same way, we get to KNOW a choreographic piece over time, because it was allowed to unfold and become a multitude of different things each time it happened.
Choreographies, like football matches, are a thing waiting to happen.
