theory number One
dance is in process of becoming two art forms instead of one. which at this point might be a matter of need. so that questions of entertainment value, expression, narration can basically pick a side. either that or making up a rank of difficulty and grading shows according to a standard, just as TV does with age limits.
(the problem, as always, seems to be of epic proportions which more often than not makes me want to crawl into a dream state, into a fictional environment where problems are solved for me, paradox is accepted if not expected, and the receiver is more likely to play with accepting elements – because what is offered is not the truth.)
QUESTION MARK
interpretation + motivation + agreement + expectation + agenda versus the truth.
this is almost like the question of monogamy versus polygamy. of naming yourself as a sexuality. or being a hipster or not.
it’s branding versus highjacking a state of mind while maintaining a fluid, non-aesthetical agenda prone to change.
it’s practice (non-fiction) versus theoretical context (fiction) versus performance of the given equation (credibility).
CREDIBILITY
*
theory number Two
what needs to become a practice and what needs to become a fictional agreement which allows for practice to happen?
take the polygamy example. what i experience is that, in a relationship in which i might not actually practice sex outside my partners identity, i nevertheless think (believe) i should be able to – which becomes a problem the moment this thinking influences how i talk, what i expect and how i behave while my partner practices misunderstanding either by thinking polygamy different to the way i think it OR by not thinking it but “prejudicing” it OR …
if 5 people are in a studio and decide to make a show together. a performance. and they develop practices according to the interest in a physical point of contact – the fact that one of the dancers thinks as a polygamist can become of crucial importance for the development of the research. if all 5 agree that this is what expression means in the context of our rehearsal, we can move. if one is practicing misunderstanding, there might be repercussions when the show meets the outside eye that acts upon his or hers already established experience in reading body language and facial expression.
(all of which means different things depending on who the author is, how the making is practiced and what is the agenda concerning the expectation upon the finished work.)
which is the core of the theory number Two.
when i say contemporary for dance i mean that upon entering a theatre, best you leave your expectations outside because the artist has potentially re-contextualized every concept that is applied to the workings of this piece. the way to attend is to relax, breathe and watch and listen attentively. (smell, taste, feel – not excluded) if the work is basically working – you will get all the hints you need to find your way through.
when i say contemporary for dance i mean that the show you will be watching hopefully does not have a point you need to get and articulate in the same way as every other person in the auditorium. which means that the greatness of the work depends on your imagination, too.
when i say contemporary for dance i mean that you need to watch with a constructive critical eye, but knowing where your critique is coming from and working with the specific rather than general.
when i say contemporary for dance i mean that there might be failure present. if it’s good failure, you will recognise why it failed. take it as information.
what is the motivation
for maintaining the interest
in failure?
i don’t know.
theory number Three
hint:
pavleheidler 