Sound Memory fast-forwarded (with added dialogue between Eva and Apollinaire)

I realize I'm a week (or year) late in joining this conversation. But I needed to see the piece and ruminate and wanted to add my quick n dirty two-bits onto what you both so eloquently provided. Note: my perspective includes the elusiveness of the choreographer and the interpretive tendencies of a critic and the - cough - authoritative absolutes of an academic - so I could contradict myself at any moment:

- Many dancers don't write esp. if they didn't come through a liberal arts program. I always thought the one thing a liberal arts ed provided was the ability to write a basic paper. But even dance majors (and many MFAs) at pretty elite, expensive, private colleges are horribly unschooled in articulating creative process or providing descriptive language for dance. It's chronic and rampant. We don't spend a fraction of our time developing our written and spoken language, because we're intent on the physical one. As if we couldn't be multilingual. We've bought into a separation of mind and body. If we think or describe or write too much about dance, we'll kill it.

- That said, art is exploration. And art is a discussion. So, if I could concretely explain exactly what I was after, or wanted to say, or whatever - then why bother making art? We're after the elusive and unknown. And, esp. when we're inside our own work, we don't know what we're saying til someone else responds, and someone else responds differently and so on...

- So, what am I saying? Dancers should work on developing their articulation about their process and their work, yes. But they can only go so far. We writers have to complete... mmm, no... we have to continue the dialogue for them.

[Apollinaire responds]
Maura! I'm so happy to hear from you. Welcome!

What you say is very interesting. And I understand about being so inside the work that you wouldn't even know quite what to say about it--you're still not quite sure what it is. I talked with a choreographer recently who said, "It's hard to talk about something that doesn't yet exist." And a dance doesn't really exist until it hits the stage. But he ended up having quite a bit to say anyway--about why he was interested to make this piece that didn't yet exist. That is, it seems to me that if choreographers just started wherever they were (not to sound too zen about it), they'd do fine.

My question (there always is one): I'm not sure what the difference is between this belief, which you accept is a problem--"We've bought into a separation of mind and body, that if we think or describe or write too much about dance, we'll kill it"--and this one, which you don't: "So, if I could concretely explain exactly what I was after, or wanted to say, or whatever - then why bother making art? We're after the elusive and unknown." I mean, isn't the same misconception governing both, that somehow talking adversely affects dancing and dancemaking? That if you could describe what you're doing you wouldn't do it? I mean, I could see the problem if you had to dance about your dance, or write about writing, but writing and talking is a distinct enough medium (with its own paths into mystery and elusiveness) that it would seem to me to be safe.

And what did you think of the Barnett, Maura? Will you be posting a review somewhere?