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, Jacques Villeglé, Forced Entertainment, Frank Castorf, William Eggleston, Pina Bausch, Roberto Bolaño, Alex Webb, Steve McCurry, Bruce Nauman, Stephen Shore, Lee Friedlander. I could name various other artists and philosophers whose work I admire. It's difficult to name individual scientists though. More recently my thinking has been oriented by my reading of the work of Peter Sloterdijk, Jacques Rancière, Zygmunt Bauman and Gilles Lipovetsky as well as numerous books on current affairs.

Why research?

The short answer is that I'd like to gain a better understanding not only of dance, but also of some of the other things that I'm interested in. I publish my ideas in the form of academic papers and I give lectures to share my findings and as a way of inviting feedback. This again helps me in my own research, but it would also feel selfish NOT to share my work.

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.

Add a Question

Send me a question and if it gets frequently asked I'll include the answer here.