t h e o r y s l o 0 p —

Expanded Choreography’s Provocation Is Not That “You Cannot Dance,” But That You Cannot Be the Only One Dancing

Expanded choreography unsettles traditional notions of dance by challenging the idea that movement is the property of isolated virtuosity or singular authority. Its provocation is not a denial of the capacity to dance, but a radical insistence that dance is inherently relational — a collective, participatory act that cannot be monopolized by any one body, style, or institution.

This perspective calls into question hierarchies embedded in classical and contemporary dance cultures that elevate the trained, the formally recognized, and the institutionally validated dancer as the central figure. Instead, expanded choreography reveals how these hierarchies produce exclusions, gatekeeping access to the very definition of dance itself.

The insistence that “you cannot be the only one dancing” foregrounds dance as a site of shared agency and co-creation. It affirms that movement, creativity, and meaning emerge not through solitary mastery but through the interplay of multiple bodies, voices, and perspectives. This challenges the myth of the isolated genius choreographer or solo virtuoso dancer, demanding instead a recognition of dance’s communal, political dimensions.

Importantly, this provocation is not simply an aesthetic or formal innovation; it is a call to politicize dance practice. If dance is always already social, then questions of who gets to dance, how, where, and under what conditions become inseparable from broader struggles over power, inclusion, and domination. Expanded choreography thus invites us to see dance as a terrain of contestation — where entrenched hierarchies can be disrupted, and new possibilities for collective authorship and participation opened.

Yet this politics must be vigilant. The demand for inclusivity risks becoming another form of control if it settles into rigid norms or definitions. Expanded choreography’s provocation therefore also warns against finalizing what dance must be or who must participate. Instead, it calls for an ongoing openness — a refusal to allow any one vision of dance to become hegemonic.

In this way, expanded choreography offers a vital model for art and politics alike: not the solitude of individual freedom, but the messiness and power of collective becoming. It insists that to dance is to be with others, and that no dance can exist in isolation.

One response to “Expanded Choreography’s Provocation Is Not That “You Cannot Dance,” But That You Cannot Be the Only One Dancing”

  1. ppp

    Counterarguments to Expanded Choreography’s Provocation
    1. The Value of Individual Mastery and Artistic Vision

    • Artistic excellence often requires years of disciplined, individual training.
    • Singular authorship can lead to innovative, cohesive artistic statements that collective processes may dilute.
    • Historical precedent: Many groundbreaking works in dance (e.g., Balanchine, Graham, Forsythe) emerged from strong individual visions.

    2. Practical Challenges of Collective Creation

    • Logistical difficulties: Coordinating large groups can hinder spontaneity, precision, and artistic coherence.
    • Quality control: Collective processes may prioritize inclusivity over technical or aesthetic rigor.
    • Decision-making: Consensus-based creation can slow down or water down artistic direction.

    3. The Role of Institutions and Standards

    • Institutions preserve and transmit dance traditions, techniques, and histories.
    • Standards ensure quality and provide benchmarks for skill development.
    • Gatekeeping as curation: Not all exclusions are unjust; some serve to maintain artistic integrity or safety.

    4. Risks of Relativism

    • Anything goes? If dance is defined purely by participation, the distinction between dance and other movement forms may dissolve, undermining the art form’s specificity.
    • Loss of craft: Without standards, the depth and complexity of dance as a discipline could be eroded.

    5. Political and Social Naivety

    • Collective processes can be co-opted by dominant voices or ideologies, even within “inclusive” frameworks.
    • Not all participation is empowering: Forced or tokenistic inclusion can be as oppressive as exclusion.
    • Utopian assumptions: The idea that collective creation inherently disrupts power hierarchies ignores how new hierarchies can form within groups.

    6. Audience and Reception

    • Audience expectations: Many viewers seek virtuosity, clarity, and intentionality, which can be harder to achieve in purely collective works.
    • Accessibility vs. depth: Highly participatory works may sacrifice depth for accessibility, limiting the potential for transformative artistic experiences.

    7. The Myth of Pure Collectivity

    • Even in collective processes, leadership and influence are unevenly distributed.
    • Authorship is never fully shared: Someone always initiates, edits, or frames the work, even if implicitly.

    8. Cultural and Contextual Limitations

    • Not all dance traditions value collectivity over individual expression (e.g., classical ballet, flamenco, certain ritual dances).
    • Cultural appropriation risks: Expanded choreography’s emphasis on participation can lead to superficial engagement with traditions not one’s own.

    9. Economic and Professional Realities

    • Career paths: Professional dancers and choreographers rely on recognition of individual skill for employment and funding.
    • Market demands: The dance economy often rewards star power and clear authorship.
    Reply

Comment