HMKV im Dortmunder U
U-Bahn-Station Altes Landgut (U1)
However, the discussions about Schlingensief’s film were sparked by the same, or similar, questions as in the case of Disabled Theater: have the performers been exposed? Have they been declared incompetent, or ridiculed?
Too much consciousness kills art and too much consciousness canalizes all the vital energy, stopping revolt from existing.
During my »Très grand Buffet« show in Fribourg, someone noticed that the works from the »Virus«, »Merci, Danke, Thank You« and »Les larmes« series were done in ball-point pens. And this person asked if I drew with »Bic« ball-point pens and said that the company »Bic« is a financing supporter of Le Pen. An information in an official journal on the financing of political parties announced this fact. It’s shit to support Le Pen. But it’s also shit to have to think about these questions.
It’s time to test whether choreography can be an instrument for thinking, rather than showing and reflecting thought.
With “aesthetic burden” I refer to an inherent aestheticism dating from Western modern dance as the persistence of the modernist quest of choreography and dance to reassert its disciplinary specificity, exclusiveness and autonomy in aesthetic categories. Aestheticism in Western theatrical dance is rooted in the oral and mimetic practice of transmission of movement, the “show and copy” model that rests upon the image and imaginability of movement. Regardless of the operation a work of contemporary dance may entail, it is more often than not presented, received, judged, historically recognized, referenced, or transmitted in the image of the body and movement. While in dance it relies on the oral mimetic logic of producing a self-identical aesthetic object by reproduction, the predominance of the visual in framing the sensorial of dance is not unique for dance, but a result of the condition of circulating any work as a commodity. What is specific...