The main take from spending the last 30 years working and creating within the dance world, is that there is a fundamental problem underlying the field, which is observable both in the nature of what is considered to be the norm in terms of the creative process, as well as in the social structures and dynamics under which the dance world operates. The highly centralized and hierarchical approaches to dance making and to the overall management of dancers in the context of established dance companies, but also in the more independent scene, still views dancers through the same lens the field has been doing so for hundred of years. Highly controlled and oppressive work environments where dancers are viewed as pure vessels, a sort of execution machine, remains the norm. It seems there is an urgency and thirst within the field for a paradigm shift regarding the perception of the dancer’s role and place in the context of dance making.

Decentralizing the conventional structure of hierarchies between choreographer and dancers, rethinking the distribution of power and responsibilities, coming up with new ways of defining what choreography/dance making can actually be, is the most valuable manner in which dance as an art form can become a relevant force in pointing out societal anomalies and proposing alternatives. Luckily, it’s also the surest way to ensure originality, make for happy, empowered and engaged dancers, bring forth a sense of meaning and change the, more often than not, problematic accepted norms of the dance world. Centralized power, be it in politics, economics, art making, education and whichever other form of ‘humans organizing themselves’, is always the lesser choice, benefiting the few in perverted ways and harming the many. Down spiralling rather than upliftings. Limiting, dumbing, numbing, oppressing, confusing.

The notion that choreography can and should be a permission-less, open platform for dancers to be able to build upon as self sovereign individuals, is so at odds with the prevailing notion itself of what choreography is, that it almost sounds like an insane idea. Yet once looked at with unbiased and unconditioned eyes, there’s nothing more obvious and simple than this fundamental truth. Going along with the current norms in the dance world, is as a lunacy, as advocating for tyranny as a political governance model might sound to anyone that isn’t trying to actually impose one on other people.

Acknowledging that the subject matter of choreography is people, individuals, actual living human beings, and therefore it can not operate in the same manner as other art forms who are working with inanimate objects, abstract concepts, colours, words, 2D imagery or sounds do, implies that the choreographer’s role is much closer to that of a facilitator, focused on the development of optimal platform-like networks that are in service of the individuals who use them, rather than the other way around - using dancers for the production of imposed subjective content in service of the self-expression of one person alone.

Realizing that choreography making is much closer to studying and developing governance models one believes are best for individuals, groups and society as a whole, than it is a tool for telling one’s own private story, is the most important and burning educational project the field of choreography making faces nowadays if it wishes to retain any sort or relevancy in a changing world.

The question itself - What Is Choreography? - needs to be turned on its head.

In earlier phases of my journey inside the choreographic thing, I used to define it as the difference between vertical and horizontal systems, being the core element of the question at hand. I have now come to believe that the choreographic process has inherent vertical aspects that cannot be overlooked or denied. The need to determine the structure and logic of how the choreographic system operates, is vertical by definition. It remains with the choreographer alone to make those choices. Yet the motivation behind these decisions, the ones that generate and shape the system at play, the incentives structure it brings about, the values it upholds and pushes to the front, must all be considered by looking at the people who will be operating within it, with the realization that the artistic quality and value of the work itself is directly linked to the quality of opportunities and potentials it holds for them.

The main responsibilities of the choreographer then, are to try and come up with an optimal protocol for the choreographic operating system, and then, to make sure that dancers understand it deeply and accept their side of the thing and the responsibilities it confronts them with. Not an easy task, since most dancers were trained in passive obedience in the form of ‘dancing’ rather than active engagement with decision making and personal responsibility.

Choreographies are either extractive based systems, or they are cooperative ones. Centrally controlled systems are extractive by nature, which means they are coercion based by default. Decentralized systems, being that they are voluntary to start with, are cooperative by nature, making coercion and central control inefficient and unnecessary. Centralized systems assume a zero sum game, where the time and energy put in by dancers are a finite resource to be extracted and exploited for the maker’s needs. Decentralized systems, being collaborative in nature, look at the question of resources as a positive sum game where everyone’s investment in terms of time and energy brings about a synergic like outcome generating value for all larger than the sum of all resources contributed to start with, leaving everyone with more than what they came in with.

Decentralized systems are about unleashing the combined potential of all of the participants towards a shred goal, to the benefit of everyone involved. The future of choreography making, is tightly linked to its ability to abandon its historical legacy as an extractive, coercive, centrally controlled practice, and adopt new, decentralized models.

Decentralized choreographic models the way I see it, are a superior artistic technology to the norm being centralized ones. Simply because they answer better most of the questions related to their immediate users - the dancers and as a consequence, the audience. Like any new superior technology, it is disruptive to the current state of things, to the existing power structure benefiting from things staying as they are and to the individuals invested in the old ways of doing things. But the nature of evolution is that new, better models, make the existing one obsolete and end up replacing them.

I believe we are at the dawn of a massive shift towards decentralized models, systems, protocols and practices in every aspect of human societies. More broadly, the way we organize ourselves as individuals is hopefully about to change. Not because it’s what most people want - sadly, most people are quite happy remaining in a state of mental slavery, privileging safety over freedom - but because this change is inevitable and will manifest itself through the natural process of the evolution of ideas and practices. This shift will not skip the dance world and the art of choreography. The sooner more people start asking this type of questions, the sooner this happens.

As someone already pointed out - “if a choreographer steps into the studio, starts moving and expect you to copy, leave the room”. Or at least, ask them WHY?, then watch what happens.

Emanuel Gat