I dont think dance is an art form. Dance, in itself, can not become art. It’s more a form of artisanal craft. Like pottery. It can be of course pushed to levels of craftsmanship so high, that it reaches the highest spiritual levels. Yet it can’t become art, simply cause it lacks some of the aspects that makes something an art work.

Choreography, has the capacity to become art. To be art. It might use dance in the process, incorporating its qualities as a craft form, but what allows choreography to be art, has nothing to do with dance and dancing.

The wider or deeper question on this, is whether the interpretation or execution of any art form, separately from the artist who created the work, is in itself, art.

We naturally define everyone who performs or interprets art, an artists. But this begs a deeper look. First of all, there’s a distinction to be made here, between art forms where the two are linked and overlapping, like in painting or sculpture for example, who traditionally tie together both things (if we ignore more modern ways of creating visual art works in factories like ateliers, with assistants carrying out the orders of the artists), and other forms of art like music where, at least in the western classical music tradition, the separation between the creator of the musical score and the musicians interpreting it, was distinct.

Picasso was both the artist creating the work, and the painter who executed it. The two are in distinguishable. Inseparable.

Glen Gould on the other hand, one of the most prominent interprets of Bach’s keyboard music, was an extraordinary interpret of the profound art created by Bach centuries before he was born. His own attempts at writing music however, as interesting as they were, could not match the overwhelming artistic depth and value of those of Bach he so well played. Would Gould become the pianist he was without the work of Bach? It’s hard to say of course, but I would risk saying that probably not entirely in the same way.

So when we look at the clear distinction between the art work, and its interpretation, we can’t avoid asking the question regarding the essence of the artistic thing. Its source. The act which makes a thing art.

So is dancing art? I’m not sure.

Choreography is a process of figuring out and highlighting logics and systems of interaction. Hence, it has to address the question of how things relate to each other through time and space.

The difference between dance and choreography, is like the difference between masturbation (great thing I have nothing bad to say about it) and love making. One produces self knowledge and pleasure, the other produces life. Art needs to produce life. In choreography, Interaction, is the life-force, not the dancing.

As someone who danced in many of his own works, I know for a fact that the artistic thing I’ve made, was separate from my dancing of it. That it is not my dancing that made the art piece what it was. That the work could easily be danced by other dancers without losing anything of its value or essence. That my interpretation of my own work, was just that, my interpretation. One among an infinite number of other possible interpretations.

So it is quite clear to me, that my artistic act, the space where I made the art work, wasn’t the dancing. It was somewhere else. And that my dancing, was a form of reading into the art work created by the other me, in that other space. The dancing in itself, never felt like art making to me.

I feel that one of the major problems of choreography, is the misunderstanding into what choreography is as an art form. Where exactly lies the artistic substance in the context of choreographic works and how it’s totally separate from the dancing or interpretation of it.

Naturally, just like with any other art form that requires interpretation and execution in order to be, the more creative, intelligent, technically proficient, knowledgeable and original the interpretation is, the more the artistic essence of the work shines. But you can hardly say the opposite. The best dancers, executing a lacking choreographic art work, have no ability whatsoever to circumvent that lack in order to produce artistic value. Can’t happen. You simply can’t dance yourself into an art work if you’re not on a choreographic platform.

But choreography, and the very specific manner in which it links the creator with the interprets, has yet another aspect which renders it different from any other interpretative art form. It requires direct contact. Unlike music, you can’t reduce it to a score that can travel through time and space. As choreographer, you need to be here and now with the dancers, throughout the process, if you want the work to actually happen. There is no way to dematerialize it. To outsource or delegate it. If you want to make choreographic art works with dancers, you need to be in the same room with them. Overtime.

It’s as much an energetic thing as it is an intellectual and conceptual thing. In a way, it’s like you can’t make a Picasso if it’s not Picasso who actually touched the brushes, colors and canvas. And just like you can’t recreate a Picasso simply by copying it, you can’t reproduce an original choreographic work in the physical absence of the choreographer. In that sense, choreography resembles painting much more than it does music.

Oops, here goes all the concept of dead choreographers repertoire out the window.

So back to the first question, is dancing art?, I guess it depends on the definition of ‘ART’.

Why does it matter? Well, maybe because if we manage to understand what art IS, we’ll be able to see better what it is not.