Dancing with words

In Dance Words, writer Valerie Preston-Dunlop has created a dictionary of dance terms that are explained not through an academic lens but through the words of dancers and choreographers. "Mickey Mousing" is "the movement following the music note for note, phrase for phrase, dynamic for dynamic" (as described by choreographer David Bintley an interview in 1984) but "to go against" is "a way of contrasting dance and music, as opposed to balancing working sympathetically" (choreographer Lea Anderson).

The 718 pages of Dance Words reflect the rich, living verbal language within dance and how dancers engage with words at a deep level.

Words are not the primary language of dance, however. During the Acts of Criticism conference at the Institute for Choreography and Dance (ICD) in Firkin Crane, Shandon, Cork, on Saturday, some dance artists felt that often words were used to legitimise dance in a culture where there still exists discomfort in dealing with the human body. Interestingly, the previous night featured a selection of Irish dance works, almost all of which engaged with text in some form, proving that words are not just restricted to the language of the studio but carry through to the final performance.

Although ostensibly about acts of criticism, the conference, organised by ICD, in association with the Arts Council's Critical Voices series, broadened the debate beyond the performer versus critic dialectic and examined other formats for critical dialogue. These elements all contribute to a climate of critical attention, where the links between the language of the dance studio and the language of academia can interrogate each other.

The keynote speaker, Sally Banes, spoke of hybridity in dance, pointing out that whereas other art forms are excited with this "new" notion, dance has nonchalantly engaged in hybridity for centuries. In a rich paper, she traced the hybrid tradition in Western dance from the 17th century through the birth of modern dance and the advent of postmodernism in the 1960s.

Although Western dance in this time has constantly looked to the "other" to enrich its language, this cultural borrowing has worked two ways. Pavlova and Ruth St Denis both inspired Indian dance, not only through the practicality of state-sponsored dance schools but, more cogently, in the language of Indian temple dancing at the time of the Indian revolution. This active cultural barter has taken us to the stage where we don't recognise the "other" but that we ourselves have become the other.

And right now we are living in "happy-ever-after time", according to US dance writer Noel Carroll, who applied Danto's theory of the end of art to postmodern dance.

Danto claimed the history of art ended in 1964 with Andy Warhol's painted Brillo Boxes, and Carroll wittily correlated this argument to the "development" of the sandwich. Once the Earl of Sandwich had finally discovered that the optimum arrangement for the bread and meat was for the meat to go in between the bread, the story of the sandwich ceased. Once this basic design was in place, all other sandwiches became "post-historical" sandwiches.

The "happy-ever-after time" refers to the fact that historically dance has had to adhere to prevailing notions of art - as a means of expression or as portraying beauty. After the postmodern dancers integrated everyday movements into their works (just as Warhol blurred the distinction between everyday objects and art), dance became liberated and we are now free to say what we want.

Encouraging critical dialogue through the language of questions - which is dramaturgy - is now gaining currency in dance. One of the pioneers, Heidi Gilpin, who worked with William Forsythe and the Frankfurt Ballet, presented a clear model for this. Speaking through an audio link from the US, she described in lucid detail her contribution to the development of Forsythe's choreographic language. For her, an act of criticism is an act of creation, part of the overall act of creating a new production.

She worked with everybody involved in the production: choreographer, dancers and designers. After initial discussion with the choreographer, she would collect material, images and texts, talk to the dancers and be a constant presence around the act of creating. The collated materials were there to be digested and embodied in the movement itself. Not everyone fully embraced or was comfortable with the process and more subtle techniques were often demanded. Sometimes Gilpin would just leave a book open on a table for someone to discover.

Another form of intimate dialogue during the creative process was explored in Peter DiMuro's presentation by Dance Exchange's Liz Lerman of her Critical Response Method. Codified into seven steps, the system sets out to aid clarity in dialogue by promoting questions, or rather neutral questions, instead of conflicts. The group watched a short section of These Two People Forgot in Silence by the Rex Levitates' artistic director, Liz Roche, after which all of the participants were invited to consider four of the seven steps.

Beginning by voicing what the group found "evocative, interesting or provocative", the delegates then answered questions the choreographer posed. They in turn could ask "information seeking questions" before offering opinions. These opinions could be either accepted or rejected by the choreographer and had to be prefaced with "I have an opinion on . . ." Liz Roche could then choose to allow the opinion be expressed or not.

Wandering through the group with a microphone Oprah-style (although at times the session became a bit more like Jerry Springer) DiMuro constantly sought absolute clarity in the questions or opinions expressed. Questions had to be neutral - there could be no "leading the witness" - and at all times the choreographer was empowered by the freedom to accept the non-conflictual opinions.

Clearly, some of the participants had difficulty with the method. In fairness, the staged nature of the workshop made it a bit unwieldy and like a therapy session. The method has a good track record in encouraging critical dialogue and has been transported to schools and conflict-management situations in the US. If dramaturgy is the language of questions, then this method provided a climate for these questions to be focused, relevant and specifically geared for what the choreographer wants.

Transferring the Liz Lerman microclimate of critical attention to the broader dance community is another matter. There is now an unprecedented interest in dance criticism and publishing in Ireland, as revealed in a working lunch on dance publishing, but the seedbed required for this critical dialogue is still illusive. There is still a distance between dancer-artists and critics. Initiating dialogue through "reviewing the reviewers" was one suggestion that was embraced by both dancers and critics.

Looking at the practicality of the review, particularly the rapid-response newspaper review, one delegate advocated critics to engage in a "psycho-physical clearing out" before viewing performance and embarking on the act of writing. Just as performers need to warm-up before performing, so too do critics before viewing and writing.

Resisting what US critic Joan Acocella calls "the pressure to praise", critics need to frame the meaning of the choreography. The act of criticism is about encouraging dialogue rather than suppressing it and this seminar went some way to exposing that dialogue. Choreographers need to be open to critical attention - and the fact that a number of the Arts Council's funded dance companies chose not to send a representative to the conference sends its own signals.

Closing the conference, Diana Theodores urged those present to continue looking for ways of exposing this critical interaction. Practically, this can be done through affirming events that allow dialogue and encouraging a spectrum of formats that facilitate this dialogue. Essentially, it also requires an openness to criticism from both artist and critic.