Rambling thoughts about Ballet de Lorraine's Unknown Pleasures (part of Dance Umbrella), a performance of five new works by anonymous choreographers (the music, lighting design and costumes designs are also listed as anonymous).
Is choreography that is a copy of someone else's good enough? And if a famous choreographer just does what we know him/her for, is it interesting?
I loved the 2nd piece, where 17 dancers constantly turn and step into different formations. I instantly thought of Lucinda Childs' work. If it is by her: yeah, I saw a new world premiere by this legend! If it is by someone else: hum nice but not original, since Childs did it all before.
So, wait, am I saying that the work is suddenly less good? I still saw the same performance. It shouldn't be actually: regardless of who choreographed it (Childs included), what we saw was not original. It could be someone copying her style, or herself churning out what we admire in her work.
It shouldn't matter. What matters was the impact we felt, the experience of the moment: those bodies, that music, those steps,
What makes choreography effective, then? What do we value in new choreography? How much does a choreographer's name impact on my appreciation and enjoyment of the work?
Questions I can't answer right now, but boy it was invigorating to go into a theatre not expecting anything, apart from the intuition that it would be good (actually it could have been a total disaster).
Can I ever again lose all my dance baggage when going to see a new work?