DCDanceBlog

i realised the other day that what i am attracted to in dance and
choreography is the movement. the very actual movement. the body that
moves.

not the body in a shape, a form, a pose, a formation.

but the body that moves between shapes, forms, poses and formations.
what i can’t touch. the movement that is gone once it happens. the
body that moves between and through shapes, forms, poses and
formations.

it’s the between i like.

the form is necessary. but it’s the going to it and from it that i like.

that’s why i can’t love ballet. or paul taylor or petipa or
cunningham, or any dance that strives for a form, a pose.

and that’s why i love the dance that doesn’t treat the pose as the destination.
that’s why i love the dance who’s destination is the path to and from.

——-

i have never thought about this before. it’s crazy.

———

wait, i take it back, i take it back. i should say: that’s why i can’t
love ballet or paul taylor or petipa or cunningham, or any dance that
strives for a form, a pose, AS MUCH.

because ballet or cunningham’s stuff travels. a lot. and it has
elements that isn’t pose oriented. but it definetely goes for shapes
in a way that in turn shapes the dynamics of the overall movement of
the choreography. it many times feels as if the shapes are the whole
point of travelling in space at all. this makes me think of what
cunninghams pieces would look like if the still shapes (the “breaks”
in the flow of the movements) were taken out.
also, it makes me think of how this is one element that is very hard
in terms of technique. meaning, it’s the moving parts of movement that
is hard. not the arriving.

and to never arrive, never go into shapes, is the hardest.