Perspective

I look at the world through the prism of the choreographic process, rather than at the choreographic process threough the prism of the world.

I don’t make work in order to comment about the world, I make work in order to understand the world.

An art work which emerges from the need to comment about the state of the world, would be better off reduced to an article in the opinions section in a daily newspaper. Or a political party.

Also, the easiest way to know if a work is based upon an internal or rather external perspective, is to examin the connectivity between the performers. The more they are separated between each other, the more the work is busy with looking outside and commenting about what it perceives. The more they seem connected, the more the work is the result of its own processes and substances.

What’s interesting to note is, that eventually, the later option gives us so much more in terms of addressing the world, its state and our place in it.

Talent

What is talent?

It is simply a form of acute insight into certain types of substances and processes. A form of innate understanding.

It’s having access.

Passive/active/tools

Some choreographies are like swings at a playground - passive potential in static form, waiting to be unleashed by the user.

And others, are like rollercoasters - already dynamic, kinetic structures, extracting reactivity from whomever goes on them.

A third and more complex kind, are a sort of hybrid of these two basic options, requiring an adjustable approach by the dancers when engaging with them.

In order to maximise the choreographic potential of each different type of choreography, there must be an aware process of engagement and an adapted operation strategy put in place by both the choreographer and dancers.

Not all choreographies can be danced in the same manner. Choreographies are tools, and so reading (or writing) the manual before using them, is indispensable.

Choreography/The World

A choreography that needs and depends upon pre declared themes in order to justify its existence, isn’t one. At best, it’s an handicapped one.

Is the ‘world’ in need of themes and arguments in order to justify its existence or explain itself?

In that sense, choreography behaves like music, rather than literature, theater or most of the useless visual art being made today, in which all there is, is the argument, concept, theme etc, taking the place of an actual art work.

Choreography, just like music, is free from the need to base itself upon external themes and concepts.

In general, you can’t make art about something. Art requires a void that shouldn’t be filled.

The fact it is extremely rare to come upon such choreographic work, speaks volumes about the state of the art form

Also, ‘dear diary’, isn’t a valid choreographic strategy.

Creation

A choreography needs no agenda infused into it.

No personal interests, wishes, views, stories. opinions and so on. They have no place in the process of creation nor in the resulting work.

The choreography should remain free from the influence and personal agendas of its maker.

What creating should focus on, is constructing a space abounded with everything that’s needed for its autonomous existence and evolution.

The maker does not and shouldn’t determine the narrative.

If there’s an aim, a goal, a plan, then it’s EXECUTION. CREATION happens when non of these are in the way.

In that sense, the act of creation means the creation of the ‘world’ in which the work is then free to happen.

Utopia

Choreography, being a practice of organizing groups of people in action, can and must be a manner of pointing towards ideal forms and systems for individuals and societies. Regardless of the achievability of these utopian models, the fact a certain choreographic system shows clear evidence of being beneficial for the group involved, is in itself of great value.

A daily practice of striving to achieve, within the artistic realm, that which is un-achievable (and probably has no place) in the real world.

Also, making art while looking back, is lazy.

People and Art

The idea that all art should be accessible to all people, is a misunderstanding of art and people.

Different art, for different people, for different reasons and different purposes.

The artist and the system / the inherent paradox

Artists go through three distinct phases on their artistic process/career (in the case they manage to assure the creative longevity needed and actually make it through all three):

  • The promising young talent.

  • The mature prime maker.

  • The established confirmed master.

The system, as in, the programmers, critics, gate keepers, decision makers, trends deciders and so on, can benefit mostly from the first and last phases. These are the two phases of an artist’s career, when engaging and supporting the work, is the most valuable for their own careers, goals and agendas.

Spotting new raw talent, claiming to have a part in discovering and promoting new artistic voices, shines back directly upon them. It validates their own existence as active players, confirms their original outlook and gives them an active role within the artistic field they’re engaged with.

The same can be said about the nature of the relationships they foster with confirmed masters at the last phase of their creative lives. Promoting and presenting old confirmed masters, those rare few who reach this level of indisputable recognition in the quality of their craft, is a sure way to once again, confirm and put forward their own qualities, tastes, awareness of the field they’re part of, appreciation of good work and their active role in writing the big story of the art form.

These are win win situations for both the artists, and the players representing the ‘system’.

However, during the second phase in artists’ creative lives, the phase in which they obtain a deep understanding and mastery of their craft, the phase in which they are the most productive, creative, daring, at the hight of their ability to produce good work, challenge the norms, open new creative pathways, while still having the energy and clarity to do so at the highest level, that phase, is of little value for those people who gladly engage with the same artists at their first or last phases.

They simply can not make that phase about themselves in any way. It stops being a win win situation. And so, most of them will disengage at that point. Only to come back when/if the artist made it to the last phase.

The reason for this is simple - In that phase, what comes forth, leaving little space for anything else, is the work itself. The work becomes the focal point. The novelty of something new vanishes, while the aura of a grand master, and everything that comes with it, is still not established.

In that specific moment, when all there is, is simply the work, the choice to keep engaging with it requires both a deep understanding of the artistic form (unfortunately rarely at hand) and the humility needed to accept being in service of something bigger than yourself. A situation far less beneficial in how it can be harnessed and reclaimed for other purposes besides presenting and promoting good art.

It’s an inherent paradox in almost all artistic fields. When artists are at their creative prime, it’s much harder to convert their work and the relationship with them, into parallel fields of value.

The work becomes free. And so does the artist.

It can’t be ridden as a force in service of other purposes. Is shines only upon itself and its audience. It’s no longer a transactional commodity or currency.

Note to myself - just keep doing.

Creation

Creation happens in the future. Even though it’s made in a constantly moving present, it aims to a point in the future where it will ‘become’. 

Be. 

Whatever it is that’s being created. 

When creating through/with the mind, one can only base oneself on past knowledge and experience. One only has available, what the mind has already experienced, processed and analyzed. 
And so, creating the future with tools and perceptions of the past, is bound to stifle and fail. It’s called repeating. 

What creation needs then, is to be guided and driven by something else rather than the mind. Something that isn’t bound to time. Some other way of processing information, and a whole different muscle for decision making. 

Odd as it may seem, the more ‘educated’ an artist is, the less it seems they have access to that realm. The more they base themselves on past knowledge and perceptions (their own or that of others) in order to try and make new things, the more they repeat ad eternum what has already been done. 

Creation requiers a leap of faith and a whole lot of unlearning, in order to shut down the formatted and conditioned mind and open up to a more effective way of doing. 

What is choreography

A process of reverse engeniering focused on the understanding (through practice) of consciousness and self choice, as the two central factors of the human experience.

Lies/Truth

Since we are the products of a civilisation based upon lies, and we currently live in societies organized around perpetual deceit, the purpose and role of art making, should be truth seeking.

Clarity/Content

Clarity, as in how clearly things are organized and executed/interpreted, is in itself, content.

Where is it?

Each specific choreographic piece, is to be found within the group of dancers in front of you. It can not be a pre existing external concept imposed upon them. Different dancers mean different works.

Choreography is a hand made artifact, refusing any form of transcription or reproduction. For the simple reason both its subject matter and operating mechanisms, are relying on living individual human beings.

TALK

The more choreographers talk while working, the less they know what they’re doing.

The Three Principles for structuring a healthy choreographic environment/system

  • First principle - recognition of needs

When a social system (a dance company being first and foremost a form of condensed social system), looks down upon individuals, disrespect their self authority and focuses on controlling/fixing them, its effectiveness is highly compromised. 

The key to transformative effectiveness, is to be found when addressing them at eye level, figuring out their needs and involving them in the process of finding solutions for these needs.

A creative process that doesn’t look through the lens of the dancers’ needs, will not produce a healthy outcome, since it is reproducing destructive notions of separateness, control, hierarchy and competitiveness (which are the dominant and prevailing denominators of the existing social and work systems today).


- Second principal - Embracing complexity

Complex situations and problems, require specific and individually adapted answers. Each dancer and each situation within the group and overall process, must be met with specific answers, after evaluating and considering the needs in each case. ‘One solution fits all’, handed down by an external authority, simplify complex situations, thus reducing its effectiveness. There isn’t one perspective, which can be used as the default when looking for solutions for a complex situation such as a group of individuals engaged in a creative choreographic process. There’s always a need to form adaptable mechanisms, and a culture of collaboration between the different individuals in view of their respective needs, in order to come up with an holistic solution, based on the dancers willingness to assume a position of responsibility for both their needs and the agreed upon solutions. 


- Third principal - systemic support

Although each individual within the group requires a great deal of autonomy in order to achieve self fulfillment, it also needs systemic support so not to have to ‘walk in the dark’, and figure out everything from scratch. This support might include sharing of existing tools, transfer of already acquired  knowledge between new and veteran dancers, a coherent long term vision of the system in which they operate, ongoing adaption and a general flexibility of the ways in which the system operates, attention to personal needs outside of the studio and creative process and a sense of meaning.

A healthy and productive social/choreographic system, is the result of a dialogue between the choreographer, which provides dancers with space, time, ressources, tools, physical financial and emotional support and a coherent vision, and the dancers, who operate as autonomous, flexible and adapting individuals, creating and sharing  information and content with the choreographer, which is then returned back to them through a série of new questions and propositions for reevaluation. 

This ongoing dialogue, is where the choreographic process takes place. But it is only present and functioning, when all three principals are maintained and respected. Resulting in a transformative improvement in the well being of dancers, reduced suffering and an optimisation of shared ressources.

Choreographic Work

Three questions to answer: 

  • how to organize movement in time and space

  • How to dialogue/interact with music (lack there of)/sound

  • How to relate to the theatrical/dramaturgical/performative aspect

About/Is

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

EGD-LOVETRAIN2020-7685.jpeg

Managment

Art making is a form of fear management, choreography, is mostly about risk managmanet.

Repertoire

Everything choreography is concerned with, is already known. It might be forgotten knowledge, but it is never new. Choreography is a way to trigger out of amnesia, through action, questions and reflection, what is already known. It readdresses the well known, so it can be seen from new angles, get reacquainted with and understood better.

In that sense, repertoire, as a concept and practice, is poisonous. It stifles the mind and shuts close the space for reevaluation, rediscovery and organic progression.