Reading: Steven Spier (ed.) — William Forsythe and the Practice of Choreography: It Comes from any Point

I am sitting here, in Berlin, looking across the Uferhallen and south, the Panke canal, through trees not yet budding in an unseasonably early spring, entirely because of William Forsythe. Of course, not entirely, the details and meanderings can be said to be my own, yet the impetus, the first shove, or — to use it knowing also its religious connotations — the revelation, was sitting in a theatre watching The Frankfurt Ballett, having no idea what it was I was seeing, but knowing that was exactly what I wanted to do.

An origin story always gets remade to emphasise the desired narrative over what actually happened, so to tell it like this is knowingly to omit to the point of lying. Nonetheless, it was seeing The Frankfurt Ballett, leaving the theatre thrilled and shaking, seeing and hearing and feeling what was roiled inside of me without recourse to language to make itself conscious; it was this moment that gave clarity and understanding to me. Perhaps even it was the moment itself, that time then, and to see it a few years later or earlier would not have caused this immediate, complete change of direction. Well, yes, perhaps. Perhaps is not so interesting nor knowable. So: I’m sitting here, writing this, because of William Forsythe.

I enjoy writings on Forsythe, The Forsythe Company, Frankfurt Ballet because the work lends itself so easily to serious critical and philosophical thoughts. When Forsythe talks about deconstruction, he really is using the word in a Derridean sense, and not some vacuous, lazy synonym for dismantling. There are conversations you can have with the former that are not possible with the latter not merely because there is neither deconstruction nor dismantling taking place; it is these conversations that interest me, which I think are pertinent, even imperative to dance.

So I come to editor Steven Spier’s William Forsythe and the Practice of Choreography: It Comes from any Point, which I forget where I first saw, published in 2011. It’s a collection of essays, some short, some long, some easy to read and addressing a general dance audience, others assuming at least a familiarity with post-’68 philosophy, music theory, architecture … most of it (approaching half-way in the reading) I find very interesting and stimulating, while a couple of parts I feel a weight of disappointment. More or less typical for an essay collection.

One in particular irritated me, no coincidence I suppose it was the one heavy on Foucault: Gerald Siegmund’s Of Monsters and Puppets. The fixation on the word, ‘monster’, dancers’ bodies as monsters or monstrous, uttered over and over until it became like a nervous tick or fetish, the direct line to Foucault (who turns up more than once in this book), irrespective of the validity of this line of writing (either as a critical interpretation or coming directly from Forsythe’s references to Foucault) is all a bit too easy, predictable. It anticipates as well a queer colonialism wherein Queer claims dancers’ bodies as its own because all that is monstrous is Queer. It’s not. Queer doesn’t get to claim all bodies that fall outside of the normative as queer, nor are these bodies necessarily monstrous.

An opposition to this is Michel Serres writing on bodies that move, bodies that dance. The dancer’s body as the possible, the unknown; the body that thinks and is subject through moving; a body that is not reducible to a duality, separate from mind (or thinking, or consciousness) because of this; a body that resists a ‘holistic’ integration or synthesis of the two by being already somewhere else.

Certainly also it’s not a strict opposition. There is at play here in the monstrous and queer what Baudrillard calls, “an increasingly racist definition of the ‘normal human.’” yet that is not all there is, nor is it necessarily a coherent path of discourse to describe what is categorised as not normal in the language that does this categorisation. If nothing else, it means we agree a priori the designation is correct and we’re just arguing over the details. There’s also something dishonest in naming bodies monstrous and yet not admitting there’s something sexy and cool in such an appellation, perhaps even better than the non-monstrous.

Perhaps all of this is to say, yes, even if Forsythe names Foucault as an influence, it doesn’t follow that all analysis of his work has to be the standard turning of the lights labeled Foucault, Lacan, Marx, and others on it and performing a kind of paint by numbers theorising. Who else is there? Serres, obviously. Judith Butler was and is writing concurrently with Forsythe’s work. Mainly I find it a little uninteresting to remain so narrow and predictable in the choice of philosophers and tropes with which to regard the world.

Besides all that, which was only one or two of the essays I’ve so far read – and even these are well-written whatever I might think of their arguments – this is one of the best collections of essays I’ve read on Forsythe, and it’s a joy to read about dance like this.

more neurotic twitching

This Sunday I’m having another workshop doing more of the improvisation stuff I started a couple of weeks ago. Since then I’ve been teaching it at ADT, and gradually coerced myself out of teaching contemporary dance at all and substituting it with this, which is far more interesting for me, and I have so much more to say about than trying to find something meaningful while teaching pliés and tendus. So possibilities of partnering and I feel a need to jump and let my bones rattle and skin melt like Emio Greco too. You can get all the information here.

“If the rest of us did that it would be a neurotic twitch.”

This Sunday I’m running a workshop based on what I’ve picked up from doing stuff with some dancers from Frankfurt Ballet over the last few years, and I guess also how I’ve imagined what I’ve learnt in my own work. When I saw Frankfurt Ballet in Wellington so long ago, I was still quite ambivalent about dance, it seemed an impenetrable story that the purpose was in the obfuscation of the telling, and really that bored me, along with movement that had no real commonality from one step to another.

So I’m sitting in the Regent Theatre in Wellington, the noise is a shrieking inferno even in the gods, the stage a gaping maw, like the open door of a blast furnace, people around me are – in their gentile balletomane fashion – close to rioting, huffing far too loudly, “This is not ballet!”, and I’m shaking, having an epiphany that is the cause of my life since. I didn’t decide right then to be a dancer, though you could say that, it was more that I saw in Forsythe’s work everything I was imagining in art made already real, and so it was obvious then what I was doing.

The movement, the dance is what snared me, to sense there was some formal system at work here, that the coherence in the apparently undisciplined structure was as precise and conscious as any architecture or musical system. This is what always draws me back to Forsythe’s work. He once described the fascination in rain splattering on a window, the endless repetition yet also the endless difference. Something you either get or you don’t.

I was really lucky in my first year of studies to meet former Frankfurt dancer Alida Chase who ran a workshop covering a large proportion of the original Improvisation Technologies dvd, and then to purloin my very own copy, that has now in various forms been pirated across several continents. Then also in Vienna at DanceWEB I had fun with Tony Rizzi and Elizabeth Colbert, more of the same and always the single underlying foundation of what I do when I make movement.

Amidst this, making my own work, occasionally doing workshops with the company dancers, I’ve assembled something that is I suppose derived from the original idea, mostly it’s my understanding of what is in fact a very clearly explained system, but it is also my appropriation of what is useful to me. My interests have shifted from the strictly geometric stuff to currently the processes that really disrupt, throwing yourself off-balance, getting entangled disasters in movement …

“You don’t start dancing. You dance.”

“If the rest of us did that it would be a neurotic twitch.”

Spatial analysis, geometric folding and unfolding, disequilibrium, falling over getting back up, deconstruction of movement and talking about it while it happens, the probabilities of dancing to make something we don’t know, and bits and pieces of William Forsythe’s Improvisation Technologies.

This workshop will explore some of the systems of improvising and generating movement and maybe even choreography that look at dance as a pure geometrical inscription. Simple methods of understanding your body in space as it falls and analysing the possibilities that can unfold from anywhere on your body, switching as rapidly and as fluidly as possible from one part to another.

The aim is to get beyond yourself, what you know and what is comfortable, to understand exactly what is happening while you’re moving and know what the infinite choices in what comes next.

When: Sunday June 3, 1pm till 4pm

Where: Gravity Studios, 41 Gilles St, In the city

How much: $10

Questions answered: 0419 586 227 or

— improvisation workshop