How and why did the state become the patron of the arts?

We live in times of excessive quantities and ever receding quality when it comes to artists and art.

One, rather surprising explanation for this, might be the central role the state has taken in the past century or so, through the public funding of artists and art in general.

The notion that the state, as a sort of paternalistic entity, is supposed to have a say in, regulate and fund the arts, and as a consequence, gain a significant control over the field, is in many ways destructive to the ability of the different art forms to naturally evolve, innovate and regulate themselves.

The centralized public funding of the arts, through the incentives it generates, the inherent conflicts of interests it creates and the corruption that comes with it, has created a distortion in the process of natural selection and the overall evolution of different art forms. The more a specific discipline is publicly funded (and contemporary dance is probably one of the most publicly funded art forms in terms of percentages), the more that distortion is apparent.

By placing itself in the space between artists and their audience, in the form of a bureaucratic, middle management sort of apparatus through its institutions, public funding and designated gate keepers, the state has created an inflationary system. It has gradually and over time, devalued and debased art and artists. It has lowered the intrinsic value artists and their work had within the society, simply by putting in place an artificially sustained, centralized system for the regulation of a thing, which is by nature, decentralized and self regulating. It has created a web of incentives for both artists and the bureaucrats of the art world, which are by definition, anti-art.    

The result? A massive inflation in the number of artists, art works, art schools, art institutions and the art industry as a whole, all of which translate to an ever growing artistic mediocrity. In a quite surprising turn of events, the state has done to art, what McDonald has done to food.

This reality, can’t be seen more clearly than in the contemporary dance world.

Most active choreographers nowadays, would never end up choosing a career in choreography in the absence of public funding, the many institutions dedicated to dance and the gate keepers which direct them (most of whom have little, or no understanding what so ever, of the art form). The majority of active choreographers under this system, were taught, pushed, selected and put in place by bureaucrats of sorts, whether they are teachers, artistic directors, bureaucrats of sorts and small time politicians, non of which are remotely able to asses a person’s talent and ability to produce value through art making (The current trend of legitimizing everything amateur, be it the performers or even the actual choreographers, as if there can be any artistic value in something simply because it resides outside that which is considered to be professional, is but one example to this twisted reality which is as destructive to the art form, as it is evil.)

What massive public funds do, is they pull people into the field for all the wrong reasons - artists, but also an entire class of parasitic bureaucrats who feed off of these ressources and the power that comes with them. It has created a parallel reality, where everything that makes someone an artists in a specific discipline, everything that is primordial, becomes almost irrelevant, while other aspects of a person’s personality, drive, motivations, skills and talents, all of which are completely unrelated to art making, become indispensable.

Public funding of art, controlled by the apparatus of the state, has a diluting effect. It compounds mediocrity, rather than excellence and merit, and It does so by pulling and letting in way too many players for the wrong reasons, and as a result, it dilutes the notion of art itself. It breeds stagnation and unchecked incompetence and by doing so, it corrupts the very notion of what art is.

What Art needs in order to do its thing, in order to be valuable, is scarcity.

The current catastrophic state of the choreographic art form, is to a large extend the result of its entanglement with the apparatus of the state’s central planning and control. The only way to save it, might be to separate the state from the arts.

By way of bottom/up observation, when looking at the end result in order to understand the system which enables it, one needs only examine the level of the works being presented and who are the leading, most subsidized makers in the states which heavily fund contemporary dance, in order to realize how badly this dysfunctional, panoptic system, has failed.

The arts for that matter, are no different than any other aspect of society where trying to provide something in a blanket governmental manner, leads inevitably to it being destroyed by misallocation, over management, hyper regulation, centralized planning and so on.

The answer to - why does the state wishes to take upon itself this role in the first place?, holds the key to two other primordial questions:

What is art?

Why do people and societies need it?

When examining the two models for funding and regulating art in the western world of the past few centuries, the main striking difference which emerges is - the church wanted the best art and the best artists to serve its domination purposes. While the state who replaced it, wants the worse art, worse artists and as many of them as possible, as a strategy for its domination and control over the masses. 

The apparatus of the modern state in the west, heavily influenced by post modernist ideas, has made art un-important by design. It has made it common, cheap, shallow, insignificant. It has followed the same trajectory it has taken regarding money and its financial systems.

In the same way and very much for the same reasons all modern nation states have abandoned the gold standard, or any other notion of sound, hard money and shifted to a corrupted, easily manipulated, centrally controlled system of hyper inflated worthless fiat currencies, stepping away from a system which was based on a thing of undeniable hard value by way of its scarcity and natural, unmistakable signature of authenticity, the state has abandoned the hard value art had since the dawn of time, and replaced it with an inflationary, corrupted, easily manipulated, centrally controlled and worthless artistic like currency.

The church was about enslavement through the spiritual realm, while the state aims for economical enslavement and therefore, it must erase the spiritual. With the decline of religion in the west and the rise of post-modernism, the eradication of the spiritual had to go through the impoverishment of art.

The first thing that needs to come back into the equation, for Art to be able to re-align with its fundamental role within society, is the spiritual. Not as a tool for control, but rather as the indispensable aspect of human existence that it is.  And the spiritual, in relations to the arts, can only flourish in direct relation to scarcity.

We need a new model. One which doesn’t take art, artists and the audience hostages in the service of interests that are all foreign to the raison d’être of art.

We need a new model for our society which produces less artists and less art. We need less quantities in order for notions such as craftsmanship, excellence, quality, originality, rarity and spirituality to once again be the defining ones when it comes to art.

The quality of art, is a reflection of the quality of the culture and civilization it enables. Craft-less, self indulgent, low quality, narcissistic, hedonistic, nihilistic art, makes for a disoriented, confused, dysfunctional, low quality society, and conversely, competent, well crafted, virtuous, high quality, spiritually driven art, makes for a strong, functional and high quality society.

The current crisis in the arts, is but a reflection (or maybe it is the source?) of the larger crisis our civilization has plunged into. It is primarily, a spiritual crisis.

We need a change.

“Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government.

Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers—who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.”

Andrew Jackson

Pina

Thinking it’s possible to make a Pina Bausch without the physical presence of Pina Bausch in the studio, is like trying to make a Picasso by copying Picasso.

Chorégraphies are originals in the exact same way and for the same reasons paintings are. You can’t recreate a choreographic work just by following a score, in the same way you can with classical music. The two art forms are on totally opposite sides in that regard.

The notion that it is possible to replicate on demand the thing which takes place at the meeting point between a choreographer and dancers, without the choreographer being present, is a joke.

Choreography requires the physical presence of the maker and dancers in the same space and over time. It’s this aspect and this aspect alone, that makes the work an original.

All the rest, is a fraud facilitated by how deeply choreography as an art form, is misunderstood.

But also,

Everything that is alive, is alive through the inevitability of its own death. Death is what allows for renewability. Death is what allows for new life to happen.

The poisoned cocktail of human fantasies for eternal life, mixed with the dance artists’ petty enviousness of the other art forms who produce objects and therefore, exceed the life time of their makers, sprinkled with a deep misunderstanding regarding the unique essence and primordial importance of the ephemeral aspect of choreography as a living form, has literally destroyed it over time. Dead artists’ repertoire, is the main reason why the contemporary scene is so dull, incompetent and un inspiring.

The only way to see a new Pina emerging, is by stopping to do dead Pina works all together. The fact that this notion seems so radical in the context of the current dance world, is anything but reassuring.

WHAT, HOW, WHY

Nature is WHAT and HOW. It just IS.

Choreography, since it is human made, is WHAT, HOW and WHY.

The WHY though, cannot stand without solid foundations of WHAT and HOW.

People can tell their stories only in the context of the natural world. Trying to do the WHY, in the absence of well crafted WHAT and HOW, is what’s wrong with most art works.

Fraud alert

Whenever choreographers claim they want to chalenge and reconsider the existing means and forms of performance and presentation, it usually means they are un able to choreograph. When you have no idea how to play the game, you turn the table over.

Shout out to the godfather of talentless wannabe artists, Mr Duchamps…

Art making is a craft. It requires proof of work, talent and competence, in order to generate value. That doesn’t mean art isn’t constantly evolving and that innovation isn’t fundamental to the artistic process, it just means that there’s no possibility for valuable art making outside of the premise of what art making IS. And this, the premise itself of art, isn’t negotiable.

Sadly, choreography is one of those art forms, where a choreographer can be utterly incompetent and still be successful for many years before it is being noticed.

Interpretation

Interpretation of a choreographic work while it is taking place, is a waste of time. It makes the viewer blind to the actual THING which is happening.

Choreography needs an undisturbed state of looking. Interpretation, gets in the way. It generates information that is external to the essence and embodied experience of the choreographic thing, hence, it takes the viewer out of that which is happening here and now.

The experiencing of a choreographic work, happens when the brain is quiet, present, un interpretative, not looking for meaning, a story, concepts, messages. It happens when there’s space for an experience un bothered by thought.

The way to look at choreography, is simply to LOOK at it. To shut down the chattering, analyzing, interpreting parts of the brain, so a full undisturbed experience can take place.

When looking at the ocean, a flower, a sunset, the looker’s experience has to do mostly with the fact no interpretation or analysis is involved. Even when the looker is a marine biologist, a botanic or an astronomer, the moment of looking and experiencing these phenomenas, is separate from the analysis and research into them that occurs in different spaces, times and states. One doesn’t need to study astronomy, in order to fully experience a sunset. Even the astronomer, has no need for the knowledge he has regarding his field of study, for a full experience of the sunsetting moment.

Choreography, probably as a result of its false linkage to theater, being that dance is usually performed in the same spaces, suffers from the automatic reflex of viewers to try and interpret the thing which is happening. To try and decode hidden meanings and messages, storylines, concepts and themes. This pressure, naturally pushes many choreographers to actually make work that delivers all of these, literally, just so they have what to answer when faced with the question - what is the work about? The result is a vicious circle of both choreographers and audiences loosing touch with the physical embodied experience the choreographic art form requires.

True knowledge, true knowing, is visceral, rather than cerebral. Real learning, real understanding, happens through an embodied experience rather than the cerebral analysis of the thing taking place. This is why choreography needs to be experienced, rather than interpreted, as interpretation is a hindrance to understanding.

That being said, there’s nothing in the above to undermine the importance and need for interpretation and analysis of choreographic works. The two are complementary. This text, is just that. But there are distinct places and times for it, non of which, is the actual moment of LOOKING at the work taking place.

Is dancing art?

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.

Censorship

Censorship is defined as the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. Depending on the context, it is usually conducted by the entity considered as authority, and which holds the power to enforce it. Other types of censorship can be self imposed.

Almost every system that surrounds us and that we are part of, includes different layers and types of censorship. Enforced, or self imposed.

Choreography is no different. in some ways, censorship is the main tool of work in the choreographic field, enforced (consciously or not) by choreographers over the individual dancers, clearly visible in the manner in which it manifests visually in a choreographic context. It is so engrained into the notion of what a choreographer’s role is, that’s it’s almost invisible.

There’s a growing need to think about a model for censorship resistant choreography, one that is a self sustaining, self governed, self stabilizing system, where the authoritarian, centralized censorship option, has been canceled.

This has to do mainly with deciding what are the foundational rules for choreographic systems, and then, what are the mechanisms put in place, for the overall decision making processes and how they can be resistant to censorship.

Censorship is not a bug, but rather a feature of centrally devised and controlled systems.

In decentralized systems, where individual players are free to decide and act, and where decisions are reached through proposition, interaction, negotiation and the need for emergent consensus, censorship becomes useless as a creative and regulating tool.

Censorship, is a form of deliberate, enforced intervention. It challenges the notion of individual sovereignty. It has defined most of what my choreographic research has been about and it keeps doing so. It serves as a road map for me to try and understand my role and position as choreographer. What to do, but mostly, what not to do. Looking through the lens of censorship, is the main tool I’m using to keep learning what my role is and what might be the best way to approach it.

Remaining on the sidelines, regarding many aspects of the choreographic creative process, is probably the most bold move choreographers can adopt. But it requires the development of a choreographic entity, which is autonomous and separate from its creator. A not so easy or intuitive concept to grasp, when it comes to art making and it’s (false) linkage to self expression.

A list of things which are forms of choreographic censorship:

• choreographers creating and then teaching material to dancers.

• Choreographers telling dancers where to stand.

• Choreographers creating ‘composition’.

• Choreographers deciding dancers’ cues.

• Choreographers telling Dancers where to come in from/exit to. And when.

• Choreographers telling dancers where to look.

• Choreographers telling dancers what to think.

• Choreographers telling dancers what to feel.

• Choreographers correcting dancers’ movements.

• Choreographers deciding for dancers how to relate to music.

• Choreographers deciding who’s dancing with who.

• Choreographers  imposing a movement style on dancers.

• Choreographers deciding for dancers what is the story they’re telling.

And on and on and on…

I’m no stranger to all of these. I’ve been there and done all of these at one point. But each and every one of these, plus many more, have slowly become irrelevant as a working tool, as my understanding of what choreography can actually be, shifted. When I do find myself falling into one of these traps, I try at least to make sure it’s done as a proposition, rather than a demand, leaving a space for dancers to choose if they want to take it or not.

By eliminating the option for censorship as a tool for choreographic creation, what might emerge, is a completely new understanding of the choreographer’s role and the choreographic art form. But for this to happen, the entire notion of what choreography, as a system which manages human energy and creativity, can be, needs to radically change and evolve.

Look mom, I made a dance!

Look mom, I made a dance!

Dances, are not choreographies. They are two completely different and separate things. Saying dance and choreography are one, is like saying a computer IS the internet, a light bulb IS the electrical grid and so on.

In that sense, saying something like “I choreographed this dance”, is like saying “I interneted this tweet”.

Choreography is a platform, a networked technology, an operating system - which enables individuals and groups to engage in creating and sharing content and meaning through action.

Dance, is a fantastic type of action. It lends itself perfectly to the platform, the network, the operating system, choreography is.

The problem arises though, when dance (or any other form of action derived content for that matter), is mistakenly considered to BE choreography.

Choreography is an enabling practice. It enables the existence of other things. It’s an infrastructure to build upon. It’s foundational in its nature. When it is not treated in this way, the result is an incoherent, un functioning infrastructure and a fragile (or non existing) foundation. All the dancing in the world won’t help in that case. It can be the best dancing there is, it still won’t change the fact there is no solid foundation to the whole, hence, no meaningful artistic value. However strange it may sound, dance cannot become art in the absence of a solid choreographic foundation.

The elusive concept to try and grasp here is, that it’s not choreography who needs, uses and is built on dance (or any other type of content being used), but dance, which needs choreography in order to happen as art (In the same way a light bulb, needs the electrical grid in order to spread its light).

The internet, as a networked technology, is different and separate from the data which is stored and shared on it. It simply enables it. The electrical grid, is different and separate from all of the appliances connected to it. It simply enables the distribution of electric energy.

Looked at from this angle, it is easy to understand why the choreographic thing, is different and separate from the content it enables, serving as an infrastructure, a platform, enabling the dance/action to happen. What the choreographic platform, grid, network, operating system and so on allows for, is an emergent, clearly defined space, for different types of content to be created and shared.

What defines choreographic creation, lie not in the things that happen, but rather in the specific conditions and the resulting incentives, which allow them to happen. It’s the mapping and engineering of the HOW and WHY, rather than the WHAT. The WHAT then, is an enabled outcome. (A tweet isn’t the social network X, nor is it the internet. Its creation depends on the presence of both these networked technologies).

That which choreography enables, is human action/interaction. The fact that any set of conditions (HOW) result always in specific incentives (WHY) for the individuals involved, is what defines the choreographer’s role. As there is always the question of needing to pre define these conditions/incentives, based on ones world view. Primordial questions such as authority, sovereignty, freedom, truth, all come into play in the process of setting the choreographic conditions.

Dance, is probably to most ancient form of human expression. Choreography, as it’s defined above, seems to be the youngest among the art forms. I sometimes have a feeling it is still in its infant phase. So much is yet to be discovered.

And this is maybe the core concept to look into when thinking about the future inovation and evolution of the choreographic art form - choreography is not invented, it is continuously discovered. It’s an extension of the universe and the laws which govern it. It is a deep look into the platform, the infrastructure, the foundation, of everything that is.

Laws/Rules

Laws, implie the presence of a ruler. They mean no choice, enforcement, coercion, control, regulation, punishment. Rules on the other hand, are a set of agreements between free individuals who accept to follow a (changeable and evolving) set of rules within an agreed upon system. They exclude the need for a ruler and enforcement.

Laws are a prerequisite for the establishment of any centralized system, while rules allow for the emergence of a decentralized one. Whomever accepts and choses to play within a specific set of rules, can do so.

Laws are inorganic by nature. They have a low rate of adaptability and are rigid by construction and definition. Rules, since they require the on going agreement of the participants, tend to evolve, adapt, improve etc.

Laws are made to serve authority, while rules tend to serve the players.

Rule of law, means a ruler. Rules, means people agreeing to act within a codified system they chose to be part of.

Choreographic works, regardless of their external apparence, style, genre etc (all of which can be very deceptive as to the nature of the system in place), are either made in a way which points to the presence of a ruler, hence implying the use of enforcement, coercion, centralized control, regulation, punishment and in general, a state of little or no choice for dancers. Or, they are the result of a set of rules developed over time and process which everyone, dancers and choreographer, elaborate together and agree upon. It’s choreographies backed by individuals making choices.

Agreeing to play within a set of rules, is nothing like obeying the law. The first implies free choice, the second doesn’t.

Dance works emanate the way in which they were made and whether they are governed by laws or rules. Many choreographic works, who clearly are made through the enforcement of law, try to mask the fact by adopting different characteristics of rules based choreography. They artificially add behavioral, performative or other layers, as a way to reproduce the specific vibe and visual effect which emerges naturally from rules based work.

Since choreography as an art form is mostly seen, read and understood only on the surface (every depth has a surface, but not every surface has a depth…), this strategy works more often than not.

In a way, it’s a perfect mirror to our so called ‘free and democratic’ societies. A thin layer of what can be experienced as freedom, covering up a rigid and violent authoritarian structure of tyranny, oppression, control, coercion and lack of free choice.

Dancing/Choreographing

Dancing is about figuring out how to best navigate the specific set of conditions a choreography is.

Choreographing, is about how to best develop, adjust and organize those sets of conditions.

If you’re a choreographer, you’re putting in place the conditions for let’s say a desert, or a tropical jungle, the ocean, or Antarctica. If you’re a dancer, you’re working on figuring out how to best survive and thrive in these different environments (sets of conditions).

That’s why as a choreographer, I’m completely passive, I would almost say indifferent, regarding the choreographic outcome. The entire focus of my role as choreographer, besides putting in place and fine tuning the choreographic conditions, is on training the dancers. Expanding their knowledge and understanding of the choreographic thing, so they can navigate and find their own way in the best possible manner within the choreographic environments I’m proposing.

What lies at the base of this approche, is seeing choice as a fundamental human right, and therefore the dancing, as an instrument of pure optionality

Over choreographing

Over engineering something, pushes it beyond a natural dynamic equilibrium, thus, killing the thing for the sake of making it predictable.

Trying to subdue the entropy of nature, to reverse the flow of time, is effort countervailing nature. It can only fail. It’s like turning nature into a zoo. Animals in a zoo are fat and sad, because they are not fulfilling the function for which they have evolved.

When trying to cancel a natural flow in order to protect us from the inherent instability of all living things, what over engineering actually does, is  bring a living thing to a halt.

The only worth while men made order, is the kind which embraces the core logic of all natural systems. Instability, being a fundamental aspect of it all.

What is it I do

To put it in the simplest manner, what I do as choreographer, is present a series of problems to the dancers, and then coach and train them in problem solving. Everything that has to do with analyzing situations, understanding potentials, decision making, cause and effect, responsibility and accountability etc.

There’s a primordial creative aspect residing in which problems I choose to present to them and how it’s done, but in general, the choreography is the result of a group of people engaged in problem solving, within a decentralized system.  I don’t have a say regarding which solutions they chose, I just make sure they go deep enough into the problem and come up with effective solutions.

The notion that as choreographer, I’m supposed to dictate to dancers what to do and how to do it, is an anomaly. The fact that this is the prevailing manner of most choreographic practices, is a mirror to the perverted and inhuman social, political and economical systems of current societies.

Choreographic code

Choreography is a form of code writing. Or more accurately, it’s an operating system, or software, which is based on a code.

Every set of rules that governs a specific space/time zone with a group of people inhabiting it, is a form of code for a specific operating system.

People did not invent the concept of coding. They simply figured out it’s a thing, and then found a way to manifest it through computer coding. They uncovered an existing thing, they managed to figure out a fundamental aspect of the universe. In the same way scientists in any other filed of research, do not invent their findings, they reach them through observation, experiment, trial and error etc. That’s why it’s called findings, rather than inventions. These ‘findings’ have always existed, we just needed to take the time to look at it in order to understand it. To figure it out. to reach a point in our evolution, where we looked at it enough and had the right motivations, incentives and technology available, in order to figure out the already existing concept of coding, and then, recreated it on a different scale and domain.

Computer code, is simply the logic of the general code of the universe, translated into computer science.

Choreography is an operating system which requires the development and refinement of a code overtime, as in, a set of clearly defined rules for how energy, that of the dancers, is being organized, harnessed, stored, channeled and shared.

As choreographers, we do not invent the concept of coding, we are just developing a code for the specific operating system our choreography is.

The big question is then, which type of code we put in place, and for what motives, as any technology can be harnessed for the best and worse intentions, motives, goals and visions.

Just like with computer coding, the option to chose a closed or open source code exists in a choreographic setting. The way I see it, free open source codes, in which everyone involved has access to the code, are far better. The software then, or the operating system, is the result of a process where everybody is writing the code, running the software and is an active user. Everyone has skin in the game. Changes to the protocol can be proposed by anyone, but they require the agreement of all users in order to be integrated into the code. That’s why open source codes tend to create communities and networks, whereas closed source ones don’t.

The thing is, there is already a code governing the universe. Once we understand the concept of code itself, we can either try and figure out the existing code so we can align with it through a different platform, as in, figure out the TRUTH of things, or we can use the concept of coding, in order to deviate from it for whatever reason.

I’ve always found that the act of artistic creation, is an act of uncovering. Of trying to figure out an already set and existing truth, rather than the invention of a new one. What I’m trying to do for the past 30 years, is align with something already in existence. To write and fine tune a choreographic code, together with the dancers, that will create an operating system that is somehow a blue print of that of the universe and the laws governing it. I see this as choreographic or artistic integrity.

And that is why I view choreography making, as potential manifestation of fundamental truths.

Style/Content

Most choreographic works, are actually a form of style, rather than content. Style, is the fastest and easiest manner to artificially produce the appearance of art.

Technology

Choreography is technology, for the channeling and organization of human energy and creativity.

Choreographic research, is the ongoing development of technologies, which allow to harness, maintain, amplify and communicate human energy, that of the dancers, in an efficient manner.

The definition of what ‘efficient’ means, is open to the interpretation, preferences and goals of the choreographer.

Freedom

Freedom isn’t a currency. It can’t be managed, granted, taken away, measured, negotiated, bought, sold, conditioned.

It’s more of a natural ressource. Like air, or water. It belongs to no one, therefore, it is naturally of everyone. Unconditionally.

The reality of human societies though, is the absolute opposite. Freedom is the first element that is treated as currency (explicitly, or in more opaque and covert manners). The first aspect of human existence that is controlled, regulated, taxed, restricted, negotiated, monitored and conditioned. All existing societal systems, have at their core the motivation and drive to turn this natural ressource, into a controlled and manageable currency. Mainly, through fear mongering and the promise of false safety that ensue.

Freedom can’t be the currency in any transactional situation or interaction. It’s a given. It is free and unconditional by nature.

Choreographic settings, systems, processes and works, are a fantastic space to visualize the ways in which humans tend to divert freedom from its essence as a natural free ressource, into a transactional currency.

Every work I’ve made in the past 30 years, couldn’t be bothered with movements, or with story telling, or with concepts. I just look at people. Their well-being. What makes them shine, grow, evolve. I look for the thing that makes people smile. Uncontrollably. Feel whole. Understood. Valued. Seen.

Not as a therapeutic strategy, that’s a side effect, but as a way to understand the truth of things, before they got deformed and perverted for different reasons. It doesn’t always work, it sometimes fails miserably, but that’s not the point anyway.

Freedom, remains a primary ingredient in any attempt to figure out the absolute mess human societies are in.

My quest, is to free people. Inside and out.

So I can free myself.

Food/Art

There’s an interesting parallel to be made between the food industry and the art world.

Most of what is being produced, sold and consumed nowadays as food (at least in the western world), has very little to do with what food actually is. An overwhelming percentage of the food being produced, has almost non of the ingredients needed in order to do what food is supposed to do. Nourish the physical body.

More than that, most of the food produced in the west today, is a form of processed poison. So not only it fails at its most basic role as nourishment, creating an ongoing physical deficit, it is an active part in poisoning the human body.

If one consumes on a regular basis 99% of what is sold as food in any typical western supermarket, there’s no other outcome possible than sickens and premature death.  The obvious results of this reality, are clearly visible in the majority of western population.

Art, isn’t really different in the ways it serves as nourishment.

What has been done to food, has been done to art, and for mostly the same reasons.

Most of the art being produced, presented and consumed, isn’t actually art. Like the processed food industry, it is just the appearance of the thing, while having almost nothing to do with it. Most art isn’t art. It says it is, it is presented, sold and consumed as one, but it fails in providing the nourishment art is supposed to.

On top of that, again just like in the food industry, a lot of the art being made, goes beyond that, and is an active form of emotional, intellectual and spiritual poisoning.

The crisis western societies are plunged into, is a direct result of this. Of things not being what they’re supposed to be. Not serving their purpose. Creating ongoing deficits, which outcomes are clear to the eye, mind and soul of whomever is willing to look.

What are the reasons for this? Ah well, that’s an easy one. Physically sick and spiritually broken people, are easier to manipulate, coerced and control.

Services providers

Most dance works being created, are made with the programmers/presenters in mind. Dance makers are focused on the needs, interests, agendas and so on, of the specific group of people who potentially, can allow them to share their work with an audience (and to a lesser extent, but it’s as present, to the ones who will critic their work)

The dance world is structured  in such a way, that makers have zero direct access to theaters and their audiences (the two essential elements needed in order to make sense of it all). Dance makers and their work, have to be selected in order to be able to share their art.

This simple fact, has a huge impact, consciously or not, on the work being made. It results in work that have very little to do with what the art form needs and is about, and at the same time, it is mostly worthless for the audiences who will receive it at the end of this hunger games like chain.

Makers create work while looking up towards the people at the top of an artificially constructed pyramid, while abandoning the core reason and recipients for art making - the artistic truth, and the people it will be shared with.

No one is to blame for this. Not the artists reducing themselves to services providers and not the gatekeepers acting as midllemen. People, like water, tend to take the shape of their container. The system in place for the presentation of dance works, is configured in such a way, that this outcome is inevitable. Highly centralized and hierarchical systems, naturally create gates and asign them with keepers. The gatekeepers in turn, answer first of all to the system which appointed them and which gives them power and ressources, rather than to the users (artists and the audience).

The day in which it will be dance makers who have the power to select programmers, theater and festival directors (as well as fire them), rather then small time politicians, is the day a possible shift can take place.

However hard it may seem, dance makers have to be able to ignore completely what the theater’s gatekeepers want, need and expect, and answer first and foremost to what the artistic process requires, with the audience in mind as the final aim of it all.

Thoughts about what can be an alternative system to this one, are inevitable. There must be a better way to do this. A less top to bottom centralized one, where simple rules of sharing, supply and demand, merit and especially, décentralisation, guide the flow of art and artists. A system which is in service to art and its audience, rather than to itself while taking both, hostages.

In a way, in order to fix the choreographic art form, we need to fix the system in which it operates. But for this, we need to first fix the entire system society is structured on.

Effort

Effort is the first thing which emanates from bad art. Good art has a way to produce a sense of ease. It’s an evidence. It doesn’t sweat form the effort to force itself, convince, impress, flatter, shock. It is minimal within its complexity. It knows its value and therefore, it doesn’t scream for acknowledgment.      

Inflation

Inflation, in the context of economic systems, is the result of devaluation of the monetary currency. Governments, through central banks, flood the markets with newly (worthless) printed money, thus lowering the value of the currency  in circulation.

If you want to devalue something, put a lot of it on offer. In a nutshell, that is what has been done to artists.

The industrialisation of art education, through the mass creation of art schools and academies in the last hundred years or so, has flooded the art world with artists, most of whom would have never venture into that field in the first place.

The artificial over production of artists, or better put, people who practice art making, has radically devalued a thing which in its organic form, is a manifestation of scarcity.

The reasons behind it, are pretty much the same as in the economic field. A thing of value, as the place an individual artist has within society, represents a threat to the system and its ability to control the masses. The best way to strip artists from their inherent power and influence, as well as making sure most active artists are the manageable kind, is simply to produce many of them. Thus rendering most art being made mediocre at best and with it, drastically reducing the leverage art and artists have within the society. Art and artists originally drew their value from their inherent and organic scarcity. The artificial Over production of both, reduced their value Immensely.

The power then, shifted back to the system, through its carefully chosen gatekeepers, turning artists from a rare manifestation of high spirituality, into services providers for a system who gets to maintain its grip and centralized control.

The inflationary reality of the modern Art world, has turned over time to an inflammatory one.