Who do you consider your biggest influences?
I would have to divide this into different periods to make some kind of intellectual itinerary. Pending that: William Forsythe, David Carson, Rem Koolhaas, Jacques Derrida, Rei Kawakubo, Georges Perec, David Foster Wallace, Gerhard Richter, Forced Entertainment, Frank Castorf, William Eggleston, Pina Bausch, Steve McCurry, Bruce Nauman, Stephen Shore, Lee Friedlander. More recently my thinking has been oriented by the work of Jacques Rancière and Gilles Lipovetsky as well as numerous books on current affairs.
Why dance?
Why indeed? Why not write an essay or work in finance or fight world poverty? Through my work in different disciplines I am well aware of the limits and possibilities of each medium. I grew up with experimental theatre, but it wasn't until I was at university that I became interested in dance. One day I saw a performance by William Forsythe and it was as if I saw my own thoughts materialized on stage. From that moment on I was hooked and began to explore every corner of the dance world. At some point a friend of mine told me to not just write about dance, but to explore my own ideas. At first I dismissed it, but deep down inside I DID want to create dance myself. So one day I organized a workshop, showed my work to some people, did some shows and the rest as they say is history. I still only work in dance because I enjoy it, because I feel I have something to say and not because a contract requires me to create a new piece as in the institutionalized dance world.
Why photography?
I began taking photos with a small camera when I was at school. Then when I was at university I bought an SLR. Film photography was an expensive hobby though or to put it differently I had other financial priorities. So I didn't really pursue it. Digital really made a difference in that respect. It enabled me to experiment without having to worry about money. And of course having some money also made a difference. And so when I'm not working on a dance production my ideas find their way into my photographs.
Why not?
Another answer to the above questions is to consider all that I don't do. I've never felt like making music. Give me a blank piece of paper and I wouldn't know what to draw. I don't feel any desire to write poetry either. But with a camera I know what I want to do. As to the question why I'm interested in dance, globalization and urbanism and not in say Chinese pottery, soccer or cooking for that matter, I've got absolutely no idea. It's a matter of chance I'd say.
How do your work in finance, your research and your artistic work relate to each other?
Art is about freedom. It is about being free to do what you want and about expressing yourself the way you want. Being an artist is not the same as making money from selling your art. Having a job gives me the freedom to work the way I want to work. I don't have to accept invitations to make a piece only to pay the bills. I'm not stuck in some kind of two or three pieces per year routine. As to my research, having a job means that I'm not forced to recycle my own ideas only to keep on publishing. I can write an article when I think I've got something to say. I think it is silly that today scientific productivity is measured in terms of quantity, the number of published papers.
Is it all improvised?
Every piece and every show is improvised. The spatial and temporal organisation and the interaction between the dancers are based upon a set of rules, while the individual movements are based upon a set of everyday movements, choreographed phrases and a number of improvisation techniques. Since the "input" as well as the rules and techniques differ from piece to piece, every piece has a distinct signature. Since the dance is improvised each performance is singular. It's not that I dismiss choreography, however I do believe that my particular approach to dance, which combines improvisation and choreography is a better means of investigating the complexity of our time than the singular mind of an artist who organizes his or her material in three to four weeks.
What is the relationship between your work as a choreographer and your research?
In my performances I just do whatever I feel like. I don't work according to some methodology. Obviously my work is informed by my research, just as my research is informed by my experience as a choreographer, I am not entirely schizophrenic, but it is not an illustration of my research.
How would you describe your work?
Between rationality and irrational exuberance. I think my approach to dance is probably rational, but it gives way to minimalism, dirty realism and the kind of deconstructed neo-baroque extravaganza that you also see in the work of say Comme des Garçons, Alexander McQueen and Philippe Starck. It all depends.
What is it about?
Each performance starts as a question and ends as the answer to the question it asks. It "is", it does not need the support of either meaning or reference for its existence. But apart from my more formal interest in language and the emergence and dissolution of structures and patterns, the frictions caused by modernization and globalisation and the fact that much of life is governed by chance are recurring elements in my work and of course joy, since I believe in dance as an expression of joy and a celebration of life.
Didn't (..) already do that?
I don't claim that every aspect of my work is original. I do believe that my background is special if not unique and that taken as a whole my way of working sets me apart from many other choreographers. Over the past 10 to 20 years I have seen countless dance performances as well as many hours of video recordings of dances from different cultures. So while my experience is necessarily limited I think I have some idea of what's going on in dance.