Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Louise Ahl
2010
BA Hons Choreography
Katrina Brown for supervision. Luke Wilson for proofreading, feedback and ongoing support.
Sara Erskine for solving textual issues. Christopher Engdahl and Yair Vardi for providing me
2
Contents Page
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................2
Contents Page...........................................................................................................3
Bibliography...........................................................................................................32
3
Introduction
The general conception of a choreographer is a person that invents and composes dance
movements - a practical inventor of physical movement. The choreographer “comes up” with
the idea for a dance piece, arranges it and creates a performance that is finally signed with the
choreographer’s name. However there is no such thing as a person who “invents” new
movements. The movements have always been there, existed and vanished - to return to a
new context in which they can be cited. The choreographer can therefore never produce
“new” movements, only re-iterate what was previously made, and therefore a choreographer
cannot claim any authorship over movements. If the title “choreographer” was removed there
would be no one who could claim the ownership of dance and movements because nobody
can “own” a movement. Or could they? Even though the title of this paper suggests a
somewhat pessimistic future awaiting the choreographer, or a downbeat of dance, this is not a
paper that intends to put an end to things. Instead, it aims to encourage new beginnings and
openings through the gesture of closing. Even though the closing motion might not be the
most beneficial in examining the choreographer’s death, let us (for the sake of dissecting the
choreographic role) propose this death for real and declare that the choreographer does not
exist. People will still dance. People might even dance on stage, as a performance. However,
nobody would claim the ownership of this dance. Could this be achievable? Can a dance piece
Throughout my choreography education, I have been concerned with trying to make dance
that is original and “new”, as this is something that is encouraged for dance artists and
4
expected in the field of performance, but I realised that this is not possible, or perhaps even
material and dancers can make a number of movements in different combinations and
different qualities. However, there are always traces from or similarities with other styles of
dance. In a literary context Jeff Collins writes that ‘writing is writing always with stolen
words’ (Collins, 1996, p. 84). This quote is just as applicable to all other art forms. In
literature letters are always used as a starting point but they are not the creation of the author
and yet they form the basis of every text. New words can be invented to some degree, but
always used so that a new text comes out of it. The same theory works for a painter, there are
a number of pigments that can be used to make a number of colours - and after that make a
painting as something new. The same thing applies to music, notes, melodies Et cetera. In
dance choreographers work with the body as the letters or pigments, and can make a number
of movements in different combinations and different qualities, but somebody familiar with
dance can always see traces of, or similarities with other pieces. In the end the dance will be a
‘mosaic of citations’ (Burke, 1998, p. 193) made up by movements that have been executed
In principle, fragments of all potential dance have already been done. Choreographers today
are just producing new structures for how to perceive this dance. The dance of today is
choreographers desire it or not. Dance as an art form invites and uses anti-authorial structures
as a mode of production and through the process of creation the choreographer loses the
5
Roland Barthes’ The Death of the Author, written in 1967, was the starting point for this
research writing, and through reading this essay, and applying his theory around authorship
onto dance I will also criticise Barthes message in relation to my own proposal of “the death
of the choreographer”. The author that Barthes discusses is easily applied to the author of
dance - the choreographer. Further research has been focused around other theorists (Michel
Foucalt and Jacques Derrida) and their critics who discusses the author and its function
philosophically and in relation to the text. In the texts written by the above mentioned authors,
the “author” is normally referred to as a masculine person, but for the purpose of this paper I
will refer to the author figure (whether this be in literature or dance) in both its feminine and
masculine form as “s/he”. In a situation of a possessive form I will write “her” before “his”
(as “her/his”) and “her/him” Et cetera. This is for the reason of placing my own gender as the
For the next chapters I will present and question anti-authorial theories as well as propose my
own in the context of dance. I will (as described in the next chapter) translate “text” into
“movements, dance and choreography” and vice versa, for the reason to apply anti-authorial
theories that concerns text as found in literature - to the context of dance. The issues
concerning ownership in dance will be presented in relation to The Copyright Act and the
conclusion will concern the problematics an anti-authorial claim poses and if there is a need
It is a fine line when one wants to decide to whom the authority over a piece of work belongs
as creative artists’ influence from other artists is inevitably a crucial or even necessary part of
the work. A choreographer goes to see performances, analyses them thus imbedding the
images into her/his brain with or without their intention. When a creative process starts these
6
images resurface, but how can the choreographer at this point define what is her/his own ideas
and what is the influence from other artists? Methods that are frequently in use by
belongs. It is impossible to try to define a difference between one’s own thoughts and those
of others, how can one then decide what is plagiarism or not? Foucalt asks us: ‘What
difference does it make who is speaking?’ (Foucalt, 1984, p. 120). Does the personal life,
status and authority of the choreographer really matter? If we watch a performance, what
difference does it make if we know who made it? Is it really possible to kill the
choreographer?
7
Chapter 1 – Dance as language
To be able to analyse dance and its choreographic structures by using literary and
philosophical theory, it is here necessary to give a rough definition of what dance is and
represents in this paper. When we talk about dance we prescribe it to have a movement
language. This language is constructed by different movements a body can make (letters or
signs as a comparison). When separated, these letters are hard to read and impossible to
situate and analyse without a context. The movement language is structured upon some of the
foundations that literature is built upon. Karmen MacKendrick suggests that: ‘In dance
movement, stillness plays the role that silence plays for literary language.’ (MacKendrick,
2004, p. 145). Even though MacKendrick should write “spoken language” instead of “literary
between the language of literature and that of dance. In the same way as single letters could
be placed in a context where we have not seen them before, movements can operate similarly.
When letters are put together, to sequences, or in a specific context – a meaning has been
formed, and this is possible to read – a language. A movement language is built around the
that a framework for the movements has been set up. It therefore makes sense to make a link
between dance as language and choreography as its written form as ‘dance cannot be
imagined without writing’ (Lepecki, 2004, p. 124) and ‘does not exists outside writing’s
space’. (Lepecki, 2004, p. 124). Choreography can be written down (notated), representing a
body of writing in a scripted form of dance, and come to life through the reading of an
audience as the live communication of this notation. There are as many ways of notating
choreography (even though the established systems for this are not well-known) as there are
ways of communicating it, but the essence of its function is based around language. When the
8
dancing body perform its movements the text in form of dance moves are sent out in space –
The word “choreography” derives from a dance manual from 1588 that was entitled
Orchesographie, ‘literally, the writing, graphie, of the dance, orchesis’, (Lepecki, 2006, p. 6-
7) written by Thoinot Arbeau. The formation of choreography was at this time based around
the body as ‘disciplined to move according to the commands of writing.’ (Lepecki, 2006, p.
6). Basically, dance was a type of writing and no distinction was made between dance and
writing. However, it is not for a purely literal meaning of the word choreography that the
connection with dance and literature exists. Since the 20th century it appeared some developed
notation systems for dance that would be used as a strategy to create and read choreography.
Today the existing notation systems for dance, such as Labanotation or Benesh
(Encyclopaedia Britannica (1981) vol. 4, 15th ed.) are not of common use and would be
difficult to rely on when describing choreography even though dance can exist without the
real bodies of dancers. (Lepecki, 2004, p. 126). Choreographers today make use of filming
rehearsals and making drawings to document their work, however challenging and impossible
it may seem to document or “write down” something as ephemeral as dance. Other means of
documentation are used by choreographers, but the concept of “writing” as described in this
paper remains.
The connection between writing and dance is made visible when Ellen Goellner and
Jacqueline Shea Murphy write about the two areas as a possible unit. (Goellner and Shea
Murphy, 1995). They see an ongoing dialogue between literary studies and dance studies,
each subject area nurturing the other with knowledge. Dance studies and the way we read
dance could benefit from theories that literally studies have already developed and use the
9
way its critics read text, ‘especially given dance’s unstable meanings, its dense net of
reference to other movements, and its complexity of structured reiterations and variations’.
(Goellner and Shea Murphy, 1995, p. ix). Because of these similarities, ‘written signs are as
unstable and fleeting as dance-steps’ (Lepecki, 2004, p. 135) and the boundaries between a
text and choreography are vague and even inter-changeable. In as much the subject (text) and
its author can be separated, it should be possible to separate the choreographer from the
dance, whereas the author’s relation to the text in both cases are of a matching kind. But does
the writer of dance – the choreographer have to die in order for this to happen?
10
Chapter 2 – Barthes’ Death?
Barthes declares: ‘Writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin.’(Barthes,
1977, p. 142). To clarify why Barthes in juxtaposition with other philosophers in the 20th
century so forcefully attacks the author it is first necessary to analyse the background to the
The author is conceived of as a person with a great deal of power. A person whom we can
rely on, and whose texts are of the most precious value, only through the nature of the work
and the belonging authority one can claim through it. ‘The Author is treated as an “intelligible
being” from whom a text emerges as from a “deep” motive, a “creative” power’. (Westphal,
2002, p. 29). The work – the text, has been seen as secondary, an additive to the person
behind its creation. Barthes, Foucalt and Derrida wanted to separate the mode of
communication (writing) from the author of the writing so that it could stand up on its own,
without depending on the author’s intentions for its meaning. If the text is free of the author’s
intention, then we can see it in its own right and not through the mindset of the person who
wrote it. (Royle, 2003). A text free from its context is also free from assumptions that will
affect how we will perceive it. Derrida writes: ‘There is nothing but context’. (Derrida cited in
Royle, 2003, p. 65). What Derrida means is that because the text gains its meaning through
the context, the value therefore lies within the context, rather than the subject (text).
To place this theory in the context of this paper, we can conclude that if the audience can free
piece then they would be left free to generate their own interpretations of what the dance
means to them based on their individual understanding of the piece (context). What Barthes
11
mainly brings forth with the above quote (“writing is the destruction….”) is that through
writing a text authors enters into a system which they have not created themselves. The
system is the product of a common understanding about what is meant through a certain word
or phrase in language. Through entering this system the authors can no longer be said to be
the sole creator or origin of their work as the system of language precedes them. Just as there
can be said to be no origin, there can also be said to be no final destination (meaning) because
there are countless different interpretations of the author’s texts based on differing contexts.
For every new context that the text appears in, a new meaning needs to be created as the text
cannot be identified by itself. The author therefore loses her/his “voice” as the language is the
constructor of this voice and the language is a system that belongs to everybody. The
choreographer can be recognised in this situation as being lost in the system of language
(dance vocabulary) and will not through the action of dancing know how to be an originator.
This is a vocabulary that already exists and through using it “the point of origin” disappears.
Barthes removes the author of a piece and therefore removes the authority they have on the
interpretation of the piece. Barthes writes: ‘To give a text an author is to impose a limit on
that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing’. (Barthes, 1977, p. 147). This
limitation will affect the reader so that the interpretation of the text lies within the authorial
intention, instead of the reader. Jason Holt agrees with Barthes on the matter, writing that
“closes” the writing, fixing the meaning of a text’. (Holt, 2002, p. 66). This “textual closure”
would influence how a dance audience perceive a performance. If an audience remains open
in terms of not having an interpretation that is shaped by the choreographer’s intention, the
possibilities for interpretations of the material would expand and increase. A general
“understanding” of dance could develop that respects the audience’s different interpretations,
12
regarding what the choreographer intended their piece to “mean”. No single interpretation can
be valued over another as ‘there is no such thing as the meaning of a text’. (Holt, 2002, p. 66).
Choreographic intentions are also a subject for examinations as these intentions are ‘imprecise
and incomplete’. (Weberman, 2002, p. 50). They can therefore not be trusted in producing a
“meaning” that is true to what the choreographer intended. Hans-Georg Gadamer asks us:
‘Does “knowing” what the poet had in mind therefore mean one knows what the poem says?’
Through removal of the author’s intentions as a point of understanding the text, the text itself
becomes the single important point of analysis. The text exists by itself and prior to the
authorial inscription. The author no longer has the power to expose an exclusive meaning of
their piece of work as ‘it is language which speaks, not the author.’(Barthes, 1977, p. 143).
The author loses its power over the text and is no longer needed for the reader to understand
it. The reader therefore becomes the authority and meaning is given to the piece not before,
Barthes does not intend to suppress the author, he acknowledges the author as a “writer of
texts”, but his focus is on the readers’ approach to understanding the text. However, The
Death of the Author seems to produce some contradictions. In the same breath as Barthes is
cetera, all – authors. In acknowledging these authors as figures of power that need to be
mentioned in a text declaring “The Death of the Author”, he is producing a statement that
recognises and “needs” authors in order to kill them. If there is an authorial death, Barthes
recognises the life of the author, and therefore the author exists. By the end of Barthes’ essay,
13
he concludes that the authorial power must be handed over to the reader and therefore ‘the
birth of the reader must be at the cost of the Author’. (Barthes, 1977, p. 148).
Alexander Nehamas is presenting a proposal through differentiating the “author” from the
“writer”. He is pointing out the fact that writing can be realised without any authorship
involved. For example; an anonymous text in form of inscriptions on a public toilet wall does
not have an author involved, even though somebody wrote the text. (Nehamas, 2002). Thus,
texts can be written without authorship, in the same way as people are able to dance without
having a choreographer involved. Another factor that differentiates the writer from the author
is the expectations that the reader have on the text. (Nehamas, 2002). Nobody hardly expects
person is an “anonymous writer”, whilst what this “anonymous writer” lacks is in turn
expected from the choreographer (the author). To really escape the subject of the author
would be for authors to use a pseudonym, a fictitious name. The author is limited in its
control over the communication process with the reader (Westphal, 2002, p. 34). Merold
Westphal also states that when the author is not above or ahead of his reader, he becomes in
as much a learner as the reader. (Westphal, 2002, p. 35). The hierarchy has been evened out to
a democratic process of learning, instead of a teacher in control over its pupils. Søren
Kierkegaard manages to be a part of this learning process through creating pseudonyms, and
comments on these figures as: ‘I have no opinion about them except as a third party, no
knowledge of their meaning except as a reader’. (Kierkegaard cited in Westphal, 2002, p. 36).
The writer’s intention is thus not equal to the text’s meaning. His pseudonymity is therefore ‘a
device to distance the writer from his texts and to accentuate his role as an interpreter rather
than the origin of their meaning.’(Westphal, 2002, p. 36). If we can ignore origins in dance
and emphasise the choreographer as an interpreter of her/his own work, the hierarchy between
14
audience and artist could be eliminated. The focus is drawn from intention to interpretation,
which enables the audience and the choreographer to share the same process. The audience, or
the reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are
inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in its origin but
in its destination.
In the same way as the author must (in Barthes opinion) die in order for the reader to be born,
the power over the performance is given to the audience when the choreographer dies and the
(Lamarque, 2002, p. 88). This produces a power shift between the producer and the spectator;
the authority of the author ceases to exist. The choreographer would however still be alive, (as
a writer in the sense that Nehamas described) even though her/his authority of producing
Britannica (1981) vol. 4, 15th ed.). A choreographer represents the authority of dance. The
title implies ownership, even though dance can exist without authorial involvement. Every
choreographer works in their own preferred way, even so the Encyclopædia Brittanica
presents eight different choreographic approaches to making dance. Each of these are
constructed upon conventional ideals based on that movements exist in some familiar
vocabulary. As this is not the case with dance that is produced today, it cannot be applied as
contemporary choreographers rather try to produce movements that are not familiar and
15
recognisable. The description of the choreographic role can then neither be applied to its
function today and should therefore be re-evaluated and expanded. Some parts of the
choreographer’s functions might have to die so that other can emerge that is more
appropriated for whatever context that it needs to work (the context of our present time).
In dance and performance a problem occurs when a piece of work is signed (in this case by
changing unity and it goes against the very nature (ontology) of a performance to describe it
as something fixed, static, as a performance can never be the same from one night to the
other. (Phelan, 1993). When the performance is over, it is over and can never be seen again,
subsequently the medium of dance is dependant upon the structure of dying and coming to
life. From not performing – to performance. It is a circle of recycled material that needs to be
completed. The art form dance necessitates the repetition to stay alive, function and exist.
material that naturally question authorship. The use of collaborative methods to create the
material is common in dance. Many dance makers form a collective with non-hierarchical
structures. The purpose of this is to share authorship and what is presented to the audience is a
product of shared time, shared knowledge, shared experience and shared creativity.
Choreographers also assign their dancers to create movements based on a specific task. In this
case the dance “belongs” to the dancers even though the choreographer made them develop
the dance. The conception of the choreographer as someone who “teaches” other people, a
boss who tells other people/dancers what to do increases the gap of the hierarchies. In
reducing the choreographic role the authorial status would and should disappear. The question
16
of who a choreographer is should not have to matter since the person behind the work cannot
make an impact on the interpretation. The question that is more appropriate to pose is: Who is
not a choreographer?
Foucault’s essay What Is an Author? appeared two years after Barthes The Death of the
Author, in 1969 and in this Foucalt is as well as Barthes writing about an “opening” after the
authorial death. Foucalt describes writing as ‘a question of creating a space into which the
writing subject constantly disappears.’ (Foucalt, 1984, p. 102). This constant disappearance is
apply to dance than the one of Barthes as he is recognising the ontology of dance - its constant
disappearance and reappearance. The history of dance functions like an endless cycle of
repetition, being present in space at one point, and in the other vanish. What could spur the
choreographer to make work instead of thinking of it as “it has all been done” would be to
recognise the cycle of absence and presence and after that realise that the more s/he makes
apparent what has already been done, s/he also makes apparent what has not been done.
absence as these binary oppositions cannot exist without each other. (Collins, 1996). The
“originality” of a text can only be applied to the context of dance because of its dependency
movements that are performed in this context can only be quoted, as they remain a source of
material that has no origin. The performance can be new but never its material.
17
Chapter 3 – Protected movements
Since 1978 it has been possible for choreographers to copyright their work. (Van Camp,
1994). To do this would for the choreographer be to define her/his work as something truly
original. How this is even possible is hard to say. The law of copyright is explicitly
problematic in the field of performance. The main issues will be presented here. If there is no
such thing as something truly original to find in dance – how can one copyright dance?
In order to be qualified for copyright protection, a choreography must be ‘an original work of
authorship.’ (United States Copyright Law, cited in Van Camp, 1994, p. 62). If the author is
dead as Barthes suggests, we can exclude anybody having a right to claim copyright
protection. Copyright gives the author full credits for the achieved work and if somebody
tried to copy this work by performing the copyrighted work publicly (Van Camp, 1994) the
law is broken. If a choreographer would like to protect their work in this way, what is it that
they desire to protect? Is it the movements? Is it the concept for the performance? Is it facial
expressions of the dancers? Is it the atmosphere the performance creates? The list goes on, yet
film, and/or written scores of the choreography. A major problem in presenting this
documentation is that the essence of a live performance that the choreographer intends to
protect gets lost when documented at film. Even if a choreographer tried to “fix” their work
(as is one requirement to receive copyright, described later in this text), there are no ways to
do this that would document it in a way so that the work would be given justice. A video of a
dance notation can only be read by a few people and written by less. A document can never
18
As expressed above it is also incredibly hard to decide what the copyright should or could
include. Can a choreographer claim copyright over just one movement? The lift of an arm, or
a tweak of a toe? What even is one movement? The person(s) responsible for deciding if the
The Copyright Act states the requirement for “originality” in writing that ‘a work is created
when it is fixed in a copy…for the first time’. (1976 Copyright Act, cited in Auslander, 1999,
p. 131). The first problem with this requirement is that a performance can never be “fixed in a
copy”, for the reason of dance’s ontology. Live dance cannot be fixed, not in a photograph,
not in written form and not on film. Performances escape the concept of being “fixed in a
copy” in its mere form. The second problem is that dance can never be done “for the first
time”. Dance can be done many times, but never for the first. The requirement for copyright
protection fails already here. When in the process of a creation this fixation should take place
is not mentioned. A creation is actualised on many levels and most of the work that makes a
live performance exist is done beforehand. Could one copyright the process or the idea for the
performance? Or if the concept for the dance piece is attained only as a live performance?
A dance that only exists as a live performance that was presented to an audience
but never written down or recorded cannot be copyrighted. A performance that
only exists for no more than a transitory period is neither a publication nor
protectable under copyright, and therefore cannot be owned as intellectual
property.
The constant influence from other artists and the idea of the movements being quotes does not
simplify the case. The only way to claim originality of one’s work lies again within the
context where the movements are placed. Julie Van Camp writes: ‘It would seem possible, at
19
least, that combinations of steps could be original, just as could combinations of words, for
which there is strong support from decisions involving literary works.’ (Van Camp, 1994, p.
64). However, it is again an impossible mission to decide upon whether or not these
“combinations of steps” could have been done before. The originality would rather be
Still, the main question after reading about law practitioners and dance theorists pondering
about how one should change the law so that choreographers can finally and rightfully
copyright their work is; why? Why do choreographers want to protect their dance? Who is the
work protected from? Where does this greediness of property come from in performing arts?
Why do they try to uphold the image that choreographers can create something original? How
closing the circle of the dance community as being something exclusive that only
choreographers with the authority to create dance will inhabit. In doing so they maintain an
is not practicable, and certainly not wished for. Not to mention dance pieces that are entirely,
or in parts made up by improvisation. How can one copyright a movement or sequence that is
Nobody owns a dance movement or a dance sequence and dance cannot be copyrighted.
Dance production should be open to citations, quotes and wild pirating. It is the only way to
break the circle of choreographic authority and should be encouraged instead of frowned
upon.
20
Chapter 4 – Recycling dance
In contemporary dance discourse there is an increasing terminology that confirms the notion
interpreting, re-constructing dance and so on. The use of the prefix “re” implies that the
actions a choreographer make can be used repeatedly, and then re-used again. Choreographies
are constructed by a never-ending cycle of traces (as will be described later). The use of
find new starting points for making work (even though the movement material they use is
“old”). This is at odds with the conventional image of choreographers as freestyle - dancing in
some creative rush. The same way as texts are made of a ‘tissue of quotations’ (Barthes, 1977,
p. 146) dance is made of “dance citations” in the form of using movement material from
choreographers’ work. The actual movements seem to become secondary, when the focus has
shifted towards the concept of movement and the structures for them to exist within.
Choreographers can as a result focus on the process of creating discourses instead of “making
up” dance movements. This shift of the choreographic attention could possibly be realised if
(For example using the same approach that Kierkegaard has towards his pseudonyms.)
An example of a choreographer who intently tried to question but not directly abolish his role
as an author can be seen as the performance Xavier Le Roy, (2003) by choreographer Jerome
Bel. For this performance, Bel asked fellow choreographer Xavier Le Roy to make a dance
piece for him. Bel had been asked to make a piece for a project in Belgium, but did not want
to work on a performance at this point even though he was tempted to participate in the
21
suggested project. Bel nonetheless decided that he wanted to participate, but without making a
performance. He therefore asked Le Roy to create the piece for him so that he would have
completed the production of a dance piece, but without having any involvement of its
creation. The piece would be signed by Bel as the author but would be created and performed
without Bel being involved in the process at all. Le Roy accepted the invitation as he thought
it would be interesting to do somebody else’s piece and created a performance that was
named Xavier Le Roy. Le Roy was excited by the fact that he could do anything he wanted, as
the conditions were that Bel would sign the piece, thus taking the responsibility for it. Le Roy
declares: ‘It opened up possibilities’ (Le Roy, 2007a). Le Roy decided to make a piece that
could have been done by Bel, a sort of continuation of Bel’s previous work. He is thus not
only using the concept of Bel being the author, but also uses Bel’s authorship in terms of how
Bel works. He also wanted the performance to appear of having been done by Bel, wanting
the audience to interpret the piece as though Bel was the originator of it. He is here playing
around with the recognition of Bel as an author (even if he in fact is not in this context), at
In the performance, Le Roy is using some elements and characteristics that Bel’s previous
performance provided, in a way re-enacting them in his own way. One element was the
choice to work with the same performers as Bel did for his last performance. The only part of
the process that Bel participated in was providing the title of the piece since he was officially
the author. (Le Roy, 2007b). In the performance the two performers are using characteristic
movements from well-recognised figures such as Adolf Hitler, Jesus Christ and Michael
Jackson. In using some of their characteristic movements (“the Heil Hitler salute”, “the Jesus
hanging on the cross” and “the Moonwalk”) they are using already familiar movements that
the audience can recognise, yet when placed in the context of this performance it is something
22
“new”, even “original”. To return to the issues with copyright, Le Roy was using movements
in the performance whose “authors” are clearly recognisable, but whose movements are not
protected by copyright. Surely Hitler never thought of copyrighting his salute and now it has
been used as a “dance movement”. There should then be no reason to distinct between a
“dance movement” and any other “movement”. When looking at re-cycled dance as a tool it
becomes again obvious that choreography could and should not be copyrightable. Who will
draw the line between a quote and an interpretation? What creative artist wants to intrude and
restrict choreographic tools? Bel voluntarily keeps and rejects his ownership of Xavier Le
Roy. In so doing, he is not only questioning the authorship of himself but also of Le Roy as
creator. In the end, we can see that both Bel and Le Roy gained recognition for the creation of
the piece, even though it was signed as “Bel’s piece”. When the audience knows about the
premise for this creation, we can also understand why the idea emerged. In a very simple way
the authorship of the choreographer is questioned, yet both choreographers gain a shared
authorship without intending to. An important factor for this to be successful is that both Bel
and Le Roy are well known choreographers and one can wonder if this project would have
The importance of influence becomes evident when they discuss this work. Le Roy claims
that he would not have been able to create this piece without first reviewing and using Bel’s
earlier pieces as a starting point (Le Roy, 2007c). In this case Le Roy chose to create a piece
as if Bel would have just proceeded from where he came from in his own creatorship. Bel also
responds on Le Roy’s influence on his own work: ‘Your work helps me continue my work.’
(Le Roy, 2007d). They both agree that it is a positive development that choreographers use
each other's work to produce their own, stating that it is not so important who says what, but
that someone says it. In stating this they are answering Foucault’s question “What difference
23
does it make who is speaking?” It does not make any particular difference as movements and
words cannot belong to anybody and therefore the source of the utterance is unimportant. Bel
is reinforcing his openness in terms of “stealing” choreography and admits: ‘I’ve taken from
other choreographers to continue my work.’ (Le Roy, 2007d). The boundaries between
origins are again blurred when not only the signature is questioned with its belonging
authorship, but also when the choreographic working mode is used not as something personal,
but something that derives from another choreographer. Krassimira Kruschkova writes:
Therefore, the concept only belongs to the author – not even the concept of
the choreography but the concept of this swindling disappearing authorship.
The author himself disappears. He only gives a name to the play: Xavier Le
Roy, but, at the same time, takes Xavier Le Roy’s name as the name of the
proper author – a generous takeover.
A “trace” as Derrida defines it is the dependency of a sign’s meaning to its relationships with
other signs. He says that the elements that construct writing cannot function without this
relationship, as a sign’s meaning is ultimately defined by its context within a language (i.e.
next to other signs). This dependency forms a trace of all signs within one another. Because a
sign’s definition is the product of its relationship to other signs, therefore the sign itself can be
said to have the “trace” of all other signs within it. The elements forming the trace can never
be defined as only absent, or only present, as they are interdependent on one another and
therefore exist within one another. (Collins, 1996). The different movements that construct a
dance are all dependant upon each other, functioning like the “elements” in writing. A dance
movement can never be a functional sign in itself, but needs to relate to other signs within the
24
trace to function. Dance movements’ dependency on each other are manifested in the trace.
A sign, as explained by Saussure is the unification of the signifier and the signified - the
“signifier” as the means of communication (text, dance, Et cetera) and “signified” as the
meaning of what is communicated (the interpretation). (Bally, and Sechehaye, 1959). In this
paper the sign will be given as an example and be represented by “the Moonwalk”. The
Moonwalk is a sign that can be identified by many and be repeatable, for example as in
Xavier Le Roy. Derrida relates to the possibility of repetition of signs as ‘iterability’. (Royle,
2003, p. 67). Writing must be “iterable” (repeatable) for the reader to be able to identify the
signs. (Collins, 1996, p. 83). If a sign were not repeatable then it would not be a viable mode
of communication. It is not possible to communicate without being able to repeat the means
of communication. For the audience to be able to identify the Moonwalk as “Moonwalk” they
need the repetition to “learn” what the Moonwalk means and represents as a sign.
(Franko, 2004, p. 116). He describes the citation as ‘a kind of verbal artifact, no longer
speech, but thing (mark, text, inscription).’ (Franko, 2004, p. 116). This construct of
citationality is the base of all dance practice. Choreographers are citing other choreographers.
Repeating and recycling dance movements in the same way as Derrida describes the re-using
of signs. The sign carries ‘with it a capacity to be repeated in principle again and again in all
sorts of contexts’ (Royle, 2003, p. 68). In dance and choreography the signifiers (movements)
can never be “new”. They remain the same independent of the context, and the only way a
choreographer can create “new” dance is to work with the meaning (significance) of the sign
25
through re-contextualising it. Combinations of signifiers can be endless and this is why
choreographers are able to produce “new” dance and dance as an art form can develop.
Returning to Xavier Le Roy we can see a choreographic recognition of the possibility of re-
contextualising movement to produce new meaning. The first “Moonwalk” in Xavier Le Roy
presents itself with a familiar significance. Through acting like Michael Jackson the
performer/s references the movements but in an unfamiliar context. In the third part of the
performance the performers are stripped of their costumes and perform the same movements
naked. As the context of the “Moonwalk” is changed so is the significance of the movements.
The movements seems to no longer explicitly reference Michael Jackson but takes on a
different significance. Le Roy proposes the body as ‘a carrier of signs. It carries signs and we
can’t escape that. All we can do is rearrange them or replace them with others.’ (Le Roy,
2007b). This is realised in Xavier Le Roy. The ongoing referencing is described by Derrida:
In Xavier Le Roy the sign (the Moonwalk) is repeated in different situations (contexts) to
create multiple meanings. Xavier Le Roy itself leaves its trace behind as to the significance or
The act of Bel signing the piece as its author plays with the concept of the signature (as the
only evidence to prove authorship). In so doing Bel practices Derrida’s theory of the signature
26
as being a piece of writing that can be – like all other text, repeatable, thus losing its meaning.
(Collins, 1996). Bel shows us in a very simple way that his signature does not give any
meaning to what he is signing. He is only performing this action because “he has to” as this is
the one recognized act to prove his authorship. However, a double meaning is to be read when
Bel names the piece Xavier Le Roy – a name that can be used as a signature, but in this
context is a piece of writing that represents the choreographer – the one that should be eligible
to sign the piece. The signature in this case merely represents and acknowledges Bel as an
initiator and the founder of the concept for the piece, nevertheless Bel makes a point with the
signature’s unimportant representation when naming the piece by another author and the title
27
Conclusion
To make gestures of the dead, to die again, to make the dead reenact once more
their deaths in their entirety – these are what I want to experience within me. A
person who has died once can die over and over again within me.
When somebody or something dies, it does not necessarily mean that this person or thing has
ended their existence. As Tatsumi Hijikata describes the being of his dancing body in above
quote, a death is a never stopping action that can be encapsulated and have a life of its own.
Hijikata’s description of this everlasting action could be applied to the uncertain existence of
the author and the origins of movements that always will haunt the dancing body. If the
choreographer can die over and over again within the structure of the trace, her/his presence
can be iterable and therefore be reborn again. The presence of death in dance is unavoidable.
André Lepecki describes the phenomenon of dance’s melancholic state of being: ‘From the
moment the question of dance’s presence began to be formulated as loss and temporal
paradox, dance was transformed into hauntology and taxidermy – and choreography cast as
mourning.’ (Lepecki, 2004, p. 127). The presence of dance and the dancing body moves like a
ghost through time and space. Dance can never reach the state of being fully present or absent
as ‘movement is both sign and symptom that all presence is haunted by disappearance and
absence.’ (Lepecki, 2004, p. 128). However morbid these metaphors may seem in the context
of such a “living” art form as dance, the haunting trace is unavoidable, especially in this paper
28
There is a clear intention to why the title of this paper has a question mark behind it, as it
aimed at proposing something that might not be possible. “The Death of the Choreographer”
exists in as much as it does not exist. When the title is posed as a question one might wonder
if the answer will be found here. I will leave that query with the reader as we have discovered
that the power of the text is prescribed to her/him. The reader of text and dance will therefore
have to make a choice in order to claim this power as it might not be handed over voluntary
by the author. The ambiguous title will speak for the ambiguous subject of authorship and
originality. As the purpose of this paper was to research the author figure of dance – the
choreographer and if s/he has a valid reason for existing, I will return to some questions that
was asked in the beginning. Firstly; is there any need to claim the choreographer as dead?
It is fundamentally crucial for the choreographer to question authorship in order to discuss the
choreographic role. Not only is the question of authorship present when focusing on origins
but also when it comes down to considering if the choreographer is able to create innovative
dance. The choreographic role not only hinders the development of processes in dance
production but also shapes structures of authority that hinders the development of the
choreographic role. If authority in form of the choreographic role as it has been formulated in
this paper will cease to exist, the choreographer can shape a new presence for her/himself that
is not founded on authority. This could be a relief not only for the audience but for the
choreographer as well. The author figure does not exist in the same way as it has done during
the course of history and its functions should adjust to this change. The need for
though the concept of the choreographer remains alive when questioned. Through critically
examining the author we realise that authors exist and so do choreographers, yet their
functions as authorities should be buried as the very existence of them holds back
29
choreographic and interpretive freedom. The importance of the choreographic role is of
course of value, but the question concerns more at this point where and how this authority is
used more than if it is needed. If the choreographic role can maintain a fleeting authority, one
that is constantly in doubt of its own existence and importance, it can also be represented as a
The authority of the production of “meaning” should be manifested in the audience, as they
are disconnected from the text (dance) and have a greater potential in producing an “opening”
of the text (dance) through their differing interpretations. When the dance has been “opened”
it will be able to include the audience in the creation as they will be a part of its development.
The audience can therefore no longer be excluded from the process whilst the choreographer’s
single “meaning” is being communicated. The task should not be for the audience to solve
some “truth”, but instead they will have the power to create an open interpretation as ‘the
meaning of a text goes beyond its author. That is why understanding is not merely a
reproductive but always a productive activity as well.’ (Westphal, 2002, p. 26). The audience
is thus integrated within the performance rather than being placed on the outside.
Barthes and Foucalt both conclude that the reader will take the place of the dead author, and
so the responsibility has shifted to whom has the power over the text. The reader’s power will
however not be authorial, for the reason that the power will be shared. No solitary
interpretation will dominate and neither will an exclusive meaning be attached to the text. I
would in a dance context stress the power of the audience as “readers” and that whatever was
intended from the choreographer should not affect the perception of a performance as the
30
Observing light passing through a prism (though ‘we know’ that the prism is
not the absolute origin of the resplendent spectacle before us) we do not deny
its effect upon the light, still less call for the death of the prism. That the author
can only be conceived as a manifestation of the Absolute Subject, this is the
root message of every authocide. One must at base, be deeply auteurist to call
for the Death of the Author.’
Whilst Barthes and Foucalt try to achieve a liberation of restricted interpretations of texts they
are at the same time succeeding in producing contradictions within their own texts that serve
to be bothersome for the critical reader. Their own texts (The Death of the Author and What is
an Author?) are recognising other authorities of texts which manifests that ‘the concept of the
author is never more alive than when pronounced dead.’(Burke, 1998, p. 121). One cannot
prescribe value to an author in one sentence and in the next reject the author’s value.
Throughout this paper the choreographic authority has been questioned in terms of its
importance - and this very question confirms its importance and proves its existence.
Let us then claim the choreographer for real, but in another guise. This “other” choreographer
will not claim authority over her/his work and can therefore not be prescribed to create
original dance. The choreographer can because of this neither claim ownership and copyright
over her/his dance. If there is no ownership there is nothing to steal and the choreographer can
be free from accusations based on property over movements. Theft functions on the basis that
property exists. How can a choreographer steal if s/he cannot own anything? Dance
movement thus becomes an open – source material, free and available for the interested user,
whether this person entitles her/himself choreographer or not. Today more than ever before
differentiate intention from influence. The Internet has created a space in which the author’s
31
role has expanded in the sense that anybody can have the authority to publish text, video or
pictures. Artist’s work are made visible through displaying it on homepages, YouTube, blogs
Et cetera. Dance can be published and reviewed without authorship involved, it is yet again
After the funeral our guests will leave the ceremony with a reinforced energy that only the
event of a death can produce as one becomes aware of life’s uncertain presence when it is
absent. The guests will remember how little or much the deceased affected their own life and
they will wonder in what way this departure will affect them from this point on. Even though
a certain presence has vanished, another has taken its place and the deceased can still exist
even if this existence has changed. The memories of what has been will affect what will
come and the dead will eventually die again, joining the trace of other deaths.
32
Bibliography
Bally, C. and Sechehaye, A. (ed.) (1959) Course in General Linguistics. [Online]. Available
at: www.cs.wlu.edu/~levy/courses/anth252f2006/saussure.pdf (Accessed: 13 April 2010).
Barthes, R. (1977) ‘The Death of the Author’, in Image-Music-Text. London: Fontana Press.
Burke, S. (1998) The Death and Return of the Author. Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes,
Foucalt and Derrida. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Burt, R. (2004) ‘Genealogy and Dance History: Foucalt, Rainer, Bausch, and de
Keersmaeker’, in Lepecki, A. (ed.) Of the presence of the body, Essays on dance and
performance theory. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that matter, On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York:
Routledge.
Derrida, J. (1971). ‘Signature Event Context’, in Limited Inc. pp. 1-23. Canada Research
Chair in Law and Discourse. [Online]. Available at: http://www.mcgill.ca/crclaw-
discourse/activities/2006-2007/ (Accessed: 25 January 2010).
FitzGerald, J. E. (1973) ‘Copyright and Choreography’, CORD News, 5 (2), pp. 25-42 JSTOR
[Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/ (Accessed: 21 February 2010).
Foster, S. L. (1995) ‘Textual Evidances’, in Goellner, E. W. and Shea Murphy, J. (ed.) Bodies
of the text, Dance as theory, Literature as Dance. New Jersey: Rutgers University press.
Foucalt, M. (1970) The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. London:
Routledge.
33
Foucalt, M. (1984) ‘What is an Author?’, in Rabinow, P. (ed.) The Foucalt Reader. London:
Penguin Books.
Franko, M. (2004) ‘Given Movement: Dance and the Event’, in Lepecki, A. (ed.) Of the
presence of the body, Essays on dance and performance theory. Middletown: Wesleyan
University Press.
Franko, M. (1995) ’Mimique’, in Goellner, E. W. and Shea Murphy, J. (ed.) Bodies of the
text, Dance as theory, Literature as Dance. New Jersey: Rutgers University press.
Gareis, S. and Kruschkova, K. (ed.) (2009) Uncalled. Dance and Performance of the Future.
Berlin: Verlag Theater der Zeit.
Gehm, S., Husemann. and Von Wilcke, K. (ed.) (2007) Knowledge in Motion. Perspectives of
Artistic and Scientific Research in Dance. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Goellner, E. W. and Shea Murphy, J. (1995) ’Preface’, in Goellner, E. W. and Shea Murphy,
J. (ed.) Bodies of the text, Dance as theory, Literature as Dance. New Jersey: Rutgers
University press, pp. ix-xiii.
Griffin, R., J. (1999) ‘Anonymity and Authorship’, New Literary History, 30 (4), pp. 877-895
JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/ (Accessed: 17 February 2010).
Holt, J. (2002) ‘The Marginal Life of the Author’, in Irwin, W. (ed.) The Death and
Resurrection of the Author? Westport: Greenwood Press.
Ingvartsen, M. and Chauchat, A. (ed.) (2008) Everybodys self interviews. (S.l.): Everybodys
publications.
Irwin, W. (ed.) (2002) The Death and Resurrection of the Author? Westport: Greenwood
Press.
Lamarque, P. (2002) ‘The Death of the Author: An Analytical Autopsy’, in Irwin, W. (ed.)
The Death and Resurrection of the Author? Westport: Greenwood Press.
34
Le Roy, X. (2007e) Interviewed by Jerome Bel, November. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ee9pdVCfc&feature=related
(Accessed: 14 January 2010).
Lepecki, A. (2004) ’Inscribing Dance’, in Lepecki, A. (ed.) Of the presence of the body,
Essays on dance and performance theory. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Melzwig, U., Spångberg, M. and Thielicke, N. (ed.) (2007) Reverse Engineering Education,
in Dance, Choreography and the Performing Arts. Follow-up reader for MODE05. Berlin:
b_books Verlag.
Nehamas, A. (2002) ‘Writer, Text, Work, Author’, in Irwin, W. (ed.) The Death and
Resurrection of the Author? Westport: Greenwood Press.
North, M. (2001) ‘Authorship and Autography’, PMLA, 116 (5), pp.1377-1385 JSTOR
[Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/ (Accessed: 10 March 2010).
Phelan, P. (2004) ‘Trisha Brown’s Orfeo: Two Takes on Double Endings’, in Lepecki, A.
(ed.) Of the presence of the body, Essays on dance and performance theory. Middletown:
Wesleyan University Press.
Van Camp, J. (1994) ‘Copyright of Choreographic Works’, Entertainment Publishing and the
Arts Handbook, 1994-95, pp. 59-92. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/bio.html#publications (Accessed: 4 March 2010).
Vardi, Y. (2009) Permutations and changes in the relationships between concepts and
materials in the practice of Jerome Bel from the early 90’s until today. Unpublished BA
thesis. Dartington College of Arts.
Westphal, M. (2002) ‘Kierkegaard and the Anxiety of Authorship’, in Irwin, W. (ed.) The
Death and Resurrection of the Author? Westport: Greenwood Press.
35
Wolfreys, J. (ed.) (1998) The Derrida reader: Writing Performances. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
36