"dancey"= non-human/definition of space through angles, lines, spirals, etc. through the human body?
My last two rehearsal (and first two as well) with David Hurwith and his selected group of women were challenging. The movement-based rehearsals are so far improvisational work that follows a set of guidelines from him. We've been working with the definition and range, I think, of gestural movements, and with finding the place where gestural and "dancey" are not so separate, where they both exist in a way that defines each other in the dancer's body and in space. That place reminds me of Faye's work, in which "dance" movements have something that triggers an impulsive human response, movements that look like "we can all do it" and "true, we all do it." Often when dancers improvise, we forget that not only were we dancers, but also humans. We forget that on top of all the techniques and "moves" that we've been trained in, we can also do other movements that we do "naturally" every day as living humans. Dance by definition might have been "movements that define space in a geometrical sense" rather than movements that are mundane. However, the collective effort of modern choreographers in the last few years to deconstruct that definition is obvious. Each choreographer is looking for that "place" where gestural meets "dancey," of course "dancey" as defined by the work in the last decade. Where is that place where dance movements can provoke a more direct, approachable, impulsive human response in more audience of different kinds and how do we get there?