Parasites

It seems to be a fact that most art critics, as well as art scholars and theoreticians, are failed artists. One doesn't choose to be an artist. You are one, or you're not. It's an evidence. You can be a true artist and still not manange to make art for whatever reason, and you can make art and have a sucsseful career, even if you're not one. But the difference between an artist and one that isn't, is strikingly obvious.  

The fact most people who speak about art, think about it, write, curate, critic, teach and so on, are in most cases those who wished, failed, or didn't dare to make art themselves, has a deep impact on any artistic field, as they usually hold great power and influence in relations to the art field they are referring to and working within. But there's no denying, that in most cases (with rare exceptions) they derail the art forms they refer to in different ways. They hold back, confuse, distract, blur, create false hierarchies, interfere, block, slow down, side track and in general, hurt the positive and natural evolution of the art form they hold so dear.

in an ideal setup, there would simply be artists, and audiences. The notion that art needs external mediators, is a false one I believe. The damages these mediators produce, trough acumelating power positions, ressources, influence and a general 'say' In relations to art and artists, are evident when looking at most artistic fields. The accepted notion that artists are these talented, yet capricious infantile beings that need to be guided, managed, channeled, translated, controlled, curated, explained and organized by 'adult' figures, is preposterous.

It is interesting to note, that the more an art form is happening within a direct dialog with it's audience (music, film etc), the less it's dependent on public ressources (dance being almost entirely dependent on them..) and the less it is bound to the setup of gate keepers (as is still the case in the visual arts), the smaller the impact of that parasite like dynamic is apparent, the more it is vibrent, produces a wider range of artistic propositions, and in general seems to be evolving in a more natural way while managing to offer real contemporary quality works.

*not all of them.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/04/jerry-saltz-my-life-as-a-failed-artist.html

Fun

if it's not fun to dance, it's bad choreography. On the other hand, It can be fun to dance, yet still be bad.  

Presence

The level of visibility of any individual dancer while on stage, is directly linked to the amount of data he or she are processing and managing in real time. 

Group unisons are a good example for that. 

When the technical aspects of achieving and maintaining a unison are external (counts, a fixed relation to the music etc), the result is a disappearance of individual presence into an anonymous mass of people. 

When unisons are managed without these external crutches, and are left to be negotiated and managed in real time by the dancers, the result will usually be much more accurate, and at the same time, the individual presence of each dancer will shine intensely. 

Juggling

Choreographing is an ongoing juggling act between dancers and choreographer, of both trust and responsibility. 

Learning

Everything I know, I learned it through choreographing.

everything I learned about people, groups, relationships, systems, responsibility, trust, processes, art, politics, love, fear, faith, and the act itself of learning, I learned through the choreographic process.

It's my teacher, mentor, guide and coach. 

photo by Julia Gat

Change

A choreographic system which does not harness the entire choreographic capacity of the dancers involved, is working at 5% of its overall creative potential. The processing power of a system is directly linked to its ability to combine that of all its participants. 

In most cases, the current state of affairs is that dancers are educated and tamed not to tap into their choreographic potentials, as they are mostly expected to follow input given by the choreographer (which basically means the work will necessarily be about her/him, which is the single most boring creative strategy I find). This being the norm, has so many negative implications on the current choreographic landscape, and only a dramatic shift in the existing education methods of young dancers, alongside a redefinition of what is a choreographer's role, might allow for a much needed change. 

Critics

Reading dance critics sometimes feels like listening to a child holding a toy car in his hand, while explaining to an old mechanic, who spent a life time taking apart engins and putting them back together, how cars function. It's hilarious and ridiculous at the same time (without the sweetness of course...)   

There is no other art form happening withing the context of such poor readership, which is to a large extent the reason for the ongoing marginalization of choreography as an art form. 

*not all of them.

the THING itself

I think of choreography as a sort of natural phenomena. Something to look at and contemplate upon, like one would any other manifestation of naturally assembled elements. In that sense, a choreography has the same properties and may provide the same experience one  would have when looking at the ocean, the sky, a crowded street, a flock of birds, a mountain or a group of children playing.

Bounding choreography to specific themes, narratives or messages, reduces it into something that smells like preaching or propaganda in the best case, or gossip when at its worse. And in both cases, it is unavoidably deeply manipulative. The thing I find most appealing about all natural phenomenas, is that there isn't the slightest shade of manipulation about them. The option doesn't even exist. 

The récurent need of both makers and audiences to handicap the choreographic medium in such ways, has more to do with fear than anything else I feel. It's a way to find reassurance by avoiding completely the act of unbiased, open observation. I think that choreography should deal with how things are made, rather than how they look or what is the story they tell, which is always bound to be a superficial discussion about appearances, rather than an examination of the THING itself.

The damages this approach to dance making produces to everyone involved, choreographers, dancers, audiences and the art form in general, are innumerable I find.

Consciousness

Choreography is a sort of group consciousness. Very different from the individual one, yet very transformative in the way it affects and Informs it. 

Sport/Art

I'm sometimes envious of sports and how easy it is to measure craftsmanship, talent and ability when referring to specific athletes, coatches or teams.. It seams as though you can't apply the same logic to the arts, as it's a matter of taste or cultural context etc, but the truth is it's actually not that different. Craftsmanship is mesurable. I can argue that I can play tennis, and that my version of playing the game is as valid as the one played by Roger Federer, but that would be ridiculous. It has to do with both an indepth understanding of the game and at the same time, being able to act upon that understanding in ways which are original, effective, creative and inspiring. Artistic craftsmanship is indeed mesurable I think, the fact though there will never be any agreed upon system to measure it, is both frustrating as it is exhilarating. 

Easy

Degrading dancers is the easiest way to create maximum 'effect'. It's also the lowest form of choreographing. .  

Intuition

The best dancers are those able to anticipate how things are going to unfold. They are basically constantly dancing and aligning themselves in relation to what will happen choreographically ahead of where they are at any given point in time and space. 

Things you can do to an audience:

Provoke

Thought provoke

Overwhelm

Control

Free

Confuse

Entertain

Challenge

Reassure

Amuse

Take over

Inspire

Love

Shock

Comfort

Puzzle

Condescend

Trick

Empower

Educate

Manipulate

Lie

Close

Open

But you have to pass through the dancers for all these. As in, whatever it is you want to do to your audience, you'll have to do the exact same thing to your dancers first. No way around it. You eventually relate to your audience in the same way you do to the dancers you're working with.

Responsabillty

The opposite of controlling dancers (through set external parameters such as counts, a set spacing, a fixed relation to the music and each other etc.), is handing over responsibility to them. Dancers sharing an equal responsibility in relations to the whole, will produce a clearer, more intresting, coherent and surprising choreographic result. 

Order

I don't try to install order, I look for an order that gets installed by itself.  

Attention

I choreograph attentions. Heightened states of attention. Layers of attentions, types of attentions, attentions spans. 

Choreography

Choreography is a group of people trying to organize a certain amount of constantly evolving ideas and shared intentions.

Change/Control

If a system doesn't keep changing all the time, it's not system, it’s a control mechanism.

Empty your pockets

If you don't fully and transparently, share your tools and processes of creation with anyone that comes in contact with your work, (which they'll copy, or be smart enough to be inspired by and then come up with their own), you'll get stuck with them. The best way to develop new ways of working, is to constantly share and give away everything you've got.

Notes/Corrections

Giving dancers notes (or corrections when calling the thing by its name..), is probably the most overused, misused, lazy and abused working tool. it's a simplistic way to gain and maintain authority, and it reduces dancers into childish execution machines. I think that if a coherent choreographic system is in place, it will naturally guid the dancers, without stripping them down from their individuality and without dismantling their power position in the situation. I find the most effective note to be 'it's not clear, try again, or try something different'.