Performance

Today I have a performance.  And this brought to mind two aspects of dance which are often considered at odds yet I would argue they are necessary to one another.  Particularly in the modern dance world, You will find those who consider themselves interested in the process of creating work but put little interest in performance.  Then you have those who like nothing more than to put on the makeup, stand in the lights, and perform for live audiences.  I believe that both satisfy basic needs of performers.

In the first place is the need for intellect.  Performers are smart people.  They may not be able to build a rocket to the moon, but they are often very logical people who reach their hands into many different areas of knowledge.  Therefore pomp and circumstance would never fulfill them as a chance to grind through a work and understand what is going on at every moment can.  To be bold, it could be said that those desiring only pomp belong in theatres of entertainment and not art.  A valid decision and in no way less important, but certainly different and distinct.

In the second place is the need for attention.  This may manifest itself in different ways but anyone with an artistic bent is looking for attention.  This is NOT derogatory.  Attention is NOT a bad thing.  If you seek to communicate a message, you clearly seek the attention for that message to be heard.  If you like to look pretty, you seek the attention of those deeming you to be pretty.  After all, the driving force behind live theater is that it is in fact live.  It is social.  There are people on stage.  There are people in the seats.  The performance happens as the two relate and connect.

I then postulate that these two are inseparable as without the first, the second occurs only as spontaneous improvisation, which although a valid artform, would also require an absence of technique or preparation and thus create a high potential for a dangerous outcome.  Without the second, the message of the intellect will never be shared outside of the creative force.

***I am fully aware that there are many artists who would disagree with the assertions which could be derived from this post and agree that there is a discussion there to be had.  For instance, I am inferring that performance requires an audience and a performer at a designated time and location.  I am also asserting that dance performance requires some form of  preparation or technique.  Among others, these are arguments for a different day.  For now, reflect on the interplay and exchange between process and product.***

Existential

I promise that I will soon post something more understandable.  But hang on for another whirlwind.

All artists need to recognize that a creation exists on its own.  That is to say regardless of what the artist wants it to be, once created, the work is something on its own.  An example:

Two muffins are sitting in the oven.  One muffin turns to the other and says "Is it just me or is it getting hot in here?"  The second muffin cried "Holy cow! A talking muffin!"

Now, some people will find that joke funny because of the irony.  Others may laugh at the mental image of two talking muffins.  Still others may not find it funny at all.  And some may not even understand it.  Similarly, I, as the person who typed the lines above, may fall into any of those categories.  The original author of the joke (a clear genius) may fall into any of those categories.  Or not.  Maybe the original author held an inside joke where 'muffin' was a code-word for a specific group of people and someone who was not on the inside of the joke, repeated it because of the irony.  No one knows.  But the fact remains that the joke is still typed above.  Go ahead and look.  It is still there.  Therefore the existence of the joke and its interpretation by readers is in no way connected to the intention of the writer.

Let's carry this a bit farther.  A piece of choreography changes a lot.  I've been in pieces which were changed in the wings just prior to the music starting.  It can happen.  But whatever happens while on stage, this is the concrete piece.  It is the visual representation that the audience sees.  It exists on its own.  A choreographer may slave away to create a piece meant to communicate X.  Almost 95% or even 99.999% of the audience may see X.  But the fact is, even that 99.999% receive X through the lens of their own mind. It has nothing to do with the choreographer's intention.*  Let's take another example:

I'm creating a new piece about the Russian Revolution.  I want to make absolutely certain that my audience understands that this is about the history of the Russian Revolution, the facts.  Therefore I include a narrator who not only tells the story of the Russian Revolution but also interprets each and every movement throughout the piece and explains how it embodies the Revolution.

You may not think there is any way to not 'get' this.  Yet someone in the audience may see the constant droning of the narrator as the embodiment of the subversive Communist party pulling the strings of the actual Bolsheviks.  Or it might be seen as a voice of propaganda.  And yet someone else may see a clever twist on the voice of current media streams and a shot at modern politics.  The point is this:  the choreographer has NO control over what the audience chooses to see.

And this is beautiful.  It takes the onus of interpretation off of the choreographer.  One does not have to worry if people will get it or if they are being clear enough without being too literal.  A choreographer may create a work in whatever way they wish and seek only to reach people.  It doesn't matter how those people are reached.  I once had the opportunity to work with Dawn Stoppiello of Troika Ranch, during the creation of Loop Diver.  The piece is very heavy and the sound score is frankly difficult to listen to.  She told me that she didn't care if audience members laughed, cried, walked out of the show, or sat with rapt attention.  Each of those was an equally valid reaction and meant that she had communicated with them.  They didn't need to know the years of work and thought that went into the piece.  They didn't even have to like it.  As long as they felt something, she considered it a success.  We all have something to learn from this view of art.

*It is also prudent to mention the difference between intention and action.  Clearly what the choreographer does impacts what the audience sees.  This is how a dance is created, a choreographer does something.  What I am pointing out is that the inspiration, intention, or message a choreographer creates with/from is in no way related to what an audience member sees.