Talk Back

Sri Louise,

Another characteristic of the European performance field that I believe is a bit lost on you, is the effect of so-called Public Private Partnerships, or triple-p funding structures on the relations between dancers, choreographers, governments and audiences.

European dance companies are not *in the first place* profit-making businesses. They are essentially no different from so-called Quangos, "quasi non-governmental organisations". Like Quangos, European dance companies are primarily government-funded, but appear as market entities, who tour and sell tickets and have a market presence, but only because this market presence is a condition for subsidies. Being on the market and making a profit is not the company's primary concern at all. Getting subsidies is.

Unlike America, where companies actually have to earn their own living, and the choreographer is therefor a commercial business-man engaged in *a kind of* employer-employee relation with his dancers (even if the dancers are freelancers), the triple-p structures here in Europe create a situation where it isn't the choreographer himself who is perceived by his dancers as the Big Boss Man. Instead, the government is seen as the Big Boss Man, because the government supplies the company with tax-payer monies *on the condition* that the company take its piece to the market. The government calls the shots, the government decides who gets subsidies and who doesn't, the government forces companies onto the market, so the government is the Big Boss Man, or so the (un)reasoning goes.

Over the years that I was writing about performances I had read and heard several statements from choreographers who claimed they'd rather not perform in front of audiences at all. They'd happily isolate themselves inside a studio, conceiving and performing in front of their friends. The only reason they had any kind of public presence is because "the government makes them do it".

This creates a situation where the choreographer is able to blame all his profiteering on the government. As long as choreographers keep saying: "the government made me do it, the government made me rip off my dancers, the government made me make my dancers sign sleazy contracts, life would be great if it wasn't for the government", and as long as dancers believe and invest in these excuses (and believe, a lot of dancers buy straight into this kind of BS), you will have a situation where it's the dancers and the choreographer united versus Big Boss-Man the government and his pesky market (ie, the ticket-buying public), and not so much the dancers against their Big Boss Man choreographer who extracts more and more resources from his dancers.

It just goes to show you how incredibly treacherous these triple-p structures are, that they would earn choreographers such undeserved loyalty from their dancers.

Maria Technosux
anti-fascist blogger

sri louise,

If you had bothered researching some of the performances that people had been doing in the years before you came to Europe, you would have realized that the kind of market critique that you want to initiate was actually being performed onstage back then. Dancers who tell you "yeah yeah, we bitch and bitch and nothing ever happens" aren't just being lethargic or cowardly. They are demoralized by what has come before.

You never got to see Jochen Roller tour _Perform Performing_, or Martin Nachbar's _Ausflug_, or Eleanor Bauer doing _Portrait of an Artist as a Worker_ by Dieter Lesage, or Palle Dyrvall's _Catastrophe Communication Combinatoria_ (go to the Impulstanz video archive and watch the sample), or Matsune & Subal Productions' _Store_, or, or, or. Even Xavier le Roy, who has become the George Clooney of the European performance field, even he used to do market critique back in the day. Download a copy of his _Product of Circumstances_ script, and see for yourself: http://www.unfriendly-takeover.de/downloads/f14_leroy_text.pdf

People in the dance field have seen these, and many many many others, attempts at a market critique, which might have gotten the performers themselves a career or a tour, but ultimately failed to change anything for the better with regards to the field as a whole. Along comes Sri Liouse, who thinks she's Atreyu and will make it past the Riddle Gate, when everyone else who tried got zapped by the Sphinxes and went no-place.

In the light of all these precedents, have you ever considered the possibility that what you are asking of European dancers is more akin to walking into a crowded cinema and in the middle of a screening standing up on a chair and screaming: "HEY, WHAT'S HAPPENED SO FAR? WHY ARE YOU HERE? THIS MOVIE LOOKS LIKE IT KINDA SUCKS!"

The market critique has become so pacified and institutionalized, it has now become accepted as fodder for graduate works.

Trust me, if it ever worked for anyone, it wouldn't have had.

Maria Technosux
anti-fascist blogger

As a young African Contemporary Dance Choreographer, I have had to learn on the job. I mean that I started dance very late. That means that I have a lot of material to catch up with in terms of contemporary dance history. For example this year 2009, I took the Choreographer's Venture because with Boris Charmatz, it was focalising on a photographer's book on 50 years of Merce Cunningham (sort of a Museum of dance and how it could be done). I did see the tip of the iceberg and I am afraid that it is really not going to be possible i.e. to catch-up as compared to other dancers who have taken alot of courses since they were young.
I am now, as a choreographer, confronted by a couple of questions during creation period. For example, how to go about choosing the music. I do have my ways of gearing my work in a certain direction but sometimes, I really don't now how to go about explaining to the person who is creating music specifically for my performances the ambiance that I would prefer or not prefer.
It occurred to me that this problem is predominant because unlike dance videos, we cannot really say that a certain music belongs to a certain era like we could sa post-modern or whatever type of dance because of the positions of the legs, the techniques used in dramaturgy e.t.c.
I'd like to know if anyone thinks, there a repertoire of music anywhere in the world where one could access a library on so many music creations for all this dance performances that have been done? I personally think that there are some really amazing music creations done by young and upcoming artists that get used once or two times and they end up in a shelf somewhere never to be touched since the performance cannot tour anymore. I have been frequently asked by my friends who have come to see a performance that I played in if they could get hold of the music/soundtracks.
Further more wouldn't it be good to be able to say to the person who is creating music for my performance that "i'd like him/her to work on the idea of a certain piece of music in a certain performance?
I wouldn't mind researching on this subject but if at all there is a structure that has done this kind of cataloging of music in performances I'd be willing to know about that, except for composed music by giants in like John Cage which you can buy on the internet.

welcome to the somatic salon blog where we can continue the community dialogues in candid, but compassionate language.

i wanted to express gratitude to everyone who co-created the conversations. i felt it was an important catalyst in shifting some of the dynamics that frequently shape our experiences at the arsenal, namely the glass walls that separate community members and the consequence of perceived, and often actual marginalization depending upon which side of the wall you find yourself on.

as dancers/teachers/choreographers we share many of the same needs, regardless of technical style or performative genre. it was important for me to initiate a public forum where we could discuss topics that are generally deemed taboo or dangerous, knowing that to give them voice would certainly provoke the status quo of our working conditions, contractual understandings, intellectual property rights, economic impoverishment and the general welfare of our field.

someone made the comment that dancers always come together and complain about the same things and yet nothing ever changes and so i was struck with the fact that maybe we are not talking about what needs to be talked about, but more importantly, in order to change, we would have to address the dynamics of non-change.

a woman said that she owns her experience as an artist/creator and that as an owner she can sell that artistic experience in the form of choreography. she recognized that, as a dancer, she exists in a dance economy and understood that her dance product was marketable and therefor could generate an income. i followed her statement with..."are you willing to sell what you own so that you no longer own it?" she was thoughtful for a moment and then replied, yes, and i understood why. i too said yes, was willing to sell what i owned so that it was no longer my own until the demands on what i no longer owned were not worth the exchange, a high profile dance job.

i was 40 before i started to consciously shift my own participation in the dynamics of non-change. as a direct consequence, it is essential for me as an artist to assert my right to what i create as the only real job security i have. i now see myself as the "site" of the work, a position which i think inherently allows me legal and economic recourse to the work. (note: i have recently had a conversation with shelly center, who i hope at some point will re-create her phenomenal insight into the dancer as the site of the work and the kinds of visibility/invisiblty that the dancer has generally been subjugated to. she helped me to see that what i thought was a contemporary convention, has actually been a long standing, systemic tool of continual dancer-disempowerment.)

in photography, at least in the states, the subject of any image must sign a model release form because the subject, as the site of the image, is offered property rights unless otherwise denoted. we have no such recognition in the field of dance and the dancer is in the most precarious position because of it. the dancer is not recognized as the locus of the work, but rather has historically been subsumed by the choreographer. even today when she/he is more active than ever in making the actual work the compensation is only the job, but what if in addition to my salary, i made a percentage of the profits every time the performance played?

this is standard in film, music, photography and most commercial work. i am intrigued by other art fields and how developed they are in terms of contractual rights. as an american, i worked from 1987 to 2003 in the professional dance world and never had a written contract. when i was finally given one to sign in europe at the age of 39, i didn't know what to look or negotiate for. i was simply happy to have a high profile performance opportunity and a constant salary. my ignorarcne was not aided by the fact that there was not a company contractual meeting where we were given our contracts and could converse about them as a group. we were independently handed our contracts at different times making it more difficult to consult your peers about the terms of the contract...which is another historically taboo conversation. some dancers who had worked in belgium before negotiated contractual items without sharing why with the other dancers; it, like the creative process, was a very darwian approach to prompting contractual agreement.

but i find that i am not alone. most dancers who sign contracts are not in full understanding of what they have signed, many of us are unclear about whether our contracts allow rights to the work we create or not? for instance, in my contract as a teacher with impulstanz, i lose the copyrights to any of the media material i submit to promote my work, which means that i will not derive income irrespective of the context they are reproduced in. still, i am only the subject of my photographs and the photographers that i work with have not relinquished their rights to the photograph's, which legally grants them recourse to the economy they might otherwise generate.

the topic of artist rights inevitably brings up issues regarding professional and personal boundaries and relates to ideas of exploitation colonialism, which is "typically interested in extracting resources to export to the metropole"...the metropole being the parent state of the colony or in this case, the choreographer. if my body is the site of the work, what are the boundaries between me and the choreographer when i come into a collaboration? there is a written contract and yet the unspoken contract is more binding then the first. is my body, as a dancer, the new exploited territory? and as the new territory what am i expected to submit to? can i keep my native tongue or do i have to conform to the vision of the choreographer in a way that i am expected to produce material with out having any investment in it, which prompts the question, what are the power dynamics of contemporary collaborations? monarchal, democratic, consensual, anarchist, meaning, who controls how the decision making process is handled?

i appreciate that dancers are happy to have more creative responsibility in the context of making work, but if you are in a monarchal collaboration and the dancer is expected to produce without being able to discuss their choices, or are deemed defensive by the choreographer if they try to articulate their artistic autonomy than the long standing dynamic of dancer submission has not only NOT shifted, but the exploitiveness of the dancer has increased, more and more is extracted while less and less creative sovereignty is granted; it is the great paradox of current contemporary dance collaborations.

i will sit with that paradox before posting another entry.

welcome to the somatic salon blog where we can continue the community dialogues in candid, but compassionate language.

i wanted to express gratitude to everyone who co-created the conversations. i felt it was an important catalyst in shifting some of the dynamics that frequently shape our experiences at the arsenal, namely the glass walls that separate community members and the consequence of perceived, and often actual marginalization depending upon which side of the wall you find yourself on.

as dancers/teachers/choreographers we share many of the same needs, regardless of technical style or performative genre. it was important for me to initiate a public forum where we could discuss topics that are generally deemed taboo or dangerous, knowing that to give them voice would certainly provoke the status quo of our working conditions, contractual understandings, intellectual property rights, economic impoverishment and the general welfare of our field.

someone made the comment that dancers always come together and complain about the same things and yet nothing ever changes and so i was struck with the fact that maybe we are not talking about what needs to be talked about, but more importantly, in order to change, we would have to address the dynamics of non-change.

a woman said that she owns her experience as an artist/creator and that as an owner she can sell that artistic experience in the form of choreography. she recognized that, as a dancer, she exists in a dance economy and understood that her dance product was marketable and therefor could generate an income. i followed her statement with..."are you willing to sell what you own so that you no longer own it?" she was thoughtful for a moment and then replied, yes, and i understood why. i too said yes, was willing to sell what i owned so that it was no longer my own until the demands on what i no longer owned were not worth the exchange, a high profile dance job. i was 40 before i started to consciously shift my own participation in the dynamics of non-change. as a direct consequence, it is essential for me as an artist to assert my right to what i create as the only real job security i have. i now see myself as the "site" of the work, a position which i think inherently allows me legal and economic recourse to the work. (note: i have recently had a conversation with shelly center, who i hope at some point will re-create her phenomenal insight of the dancer as the site of the work and the kinds of visibility/invisiblty that the dancer has generally been subjugated to. she helped me to see that what i thought was a contemporary convention, has actually been a long standing, systemic tool of continual dancer-disempowerment.)

in photography, at least in the states, the subject of any image must sign a model release form because the subject, as the site of the image, is offered property rights unless otherwise denoted. we have no such recognition in the field of dance and the dancer is in the most precarious position because of it. the dancer is not recognized as the locus of the work, but rather has historically been subsumed by the choreographer. even today when she/he is more active than ever in making the actual work the compensation is only the job, but what if in addition to my salary, i made a percentage of the profits every time the performance played?

this is standard in film, music, photography and most commercial work. i am intrigued by other art fields and how developed they are in terms of contractual rights. as an american, i worked from 1987 to 2003 in the professional dance world and never had a written contract. when i was finally given one to sign in europe at the age of 39, i didn't know what to look or negotiate for. i was simply happy to have a high profile performance opportunity and a constant salary. my ignorarcne was not aided by the fact that there was not a company contractual meeting where we were given our contracts and could converse about them as a group. we were independently handed our contracts at different times making it more difficult to consult your peers about the terms of the contract...which is another historically taboo conversation. some dancers who had worked in belgium before negotiated contractual items without sharing why with the other dancers; it, like the creative process, was a very darwian approach to prompting contractual agreement.

but i find that i am not alone. most dancers who sign contracts are not in full understanding of what they have signed, many of us are unclear about whether our contracts allow rights to the work we create or not? for instance, in my contract as a teacher with impulstanz, i lose the copyrights to any of the media material i submit to promote my work, which means that i will not derive income irrespective of the context they are reproduced in. still, i am only the subject of my photographs and the photographers that i work with have not relinquished their rights to the photograph's, which legally grants them recourse to the economy they might otherwise generate.

the topic of artist rights inevitably brings up issues regarding professional and personal boundaries and relates to ideas of exploitation colonialism, which is "typically interested in extracting resources to export to the metropole"...the metropole being the parent state of the colony or in this case, the choreographer. if my body is the site of the work, what are the boundaries between me and the choreographer when i come into a collaboration? there is a written contract and yet the unspoken contract is more binding then the first. is my body, as a dancer, the new exploited territory? and as the new territory what am i expected to submit to? can i keep my native tongue or do i have to conform to the vision of the choreographer in a way that i am expected to produce material with out having any investment in it, which prompts the question, what are the power dynamics of contemporary collaborations? monarchicl, democratic, consensual, or anarchistic? meaning, who controls how the decision making process is handled? i appreciate that dancers are happy to have more creative responsibility in the context of making work, but if you are in a monarchal collaboration and the dancer is expected to produce without being able to discuss their choices, or are deemed defensive by the choreographer if they try to articulate their artistic autonomy than the long standing dynamic of dancer submission has not only NOT shifted, but the exploitiveness of the dancer has increased, more and more is extracted while less and less creative sovereignty is granted; it is the great paradox of current collaborative situations.

i will sit with that paradox before posting another entry.