The author describes dancers as a very athletic breed of people, yet I know many people in the dance community as well as theatre community that do not seem to be as athletic as one might think they would need to be in order to be a great dancer. So, I guess my questions are:

1. Does an athletic body really mean toned muscles and a nice extension, or can it really be referring to an energetic state of mind that all dancers must be in in order to achieve greatness?

2. “Excess energy is necessary only for playing a specific character…” Why does the author think this? Shouldn’t a dancer be putting 110% in at all times, yet look like it is effortless?

When the author states ” the audiences sometimes will say “that was a great choreography” when what they really mean is that the dancers; performances of the steps pleased them. Others might say, “that choreography was difficult” but what they really mean is that the steps were difficult to perform”. Does he mean that the steps are separate from the choreography? Aren’t the steps the ones that create the choreography ?

1. The author states that a dancer must be in perfect physical health to perform well, many dancers are underweight, which is clearly not healthy. How does one justify hiring underweight and underfed dancers if it is necessary for them to be in perfect physical health?

2. Although the author says that there’s no such thing as bad movement in dancing (192). However, he includes so many rules and qualifications for how the dancer should move that there seems to be no room to have “bad movement” because a dancer has to follow so many specifics otherwise he/she is not even dancing.

How can a choreographer use a “logical basis” (211) for his or her dance, and yet create an abstract dance?  Wouldn’t the “exaggeration, distortion, substitution, and symbolism” (214) contradict the logic behind the dance?

In discussing a dancers performance and the audiences response the author says, “I clearly remember the embarrassment I felt as an audience member in a discomfiting mismatch of choreographic intentions and audience perception of technique” (189). Does this mean that the messages and story of a dance can get lost in a performance too full of “tricks”? Why, as an audience, are we so used to looking for fun rather than more in depth meanings in dance, and even other art forms? This also brings up the question, what is more important, the artist’s (in this case dancer/choreographer) intentions, or the audiences interpretation?

I found it interesting when the author mentions the difference between when the audience saying the choreography was difficult and the actual meaning of that phrase being that the steps were difficult to perform.  Is the fact that the steps were difficult really different from saying that the choreography was difficult, despite the fact that the steps being difficult to perform is stated as not being a part of the process of the dance’s composition?

Do you believe emotion or technique is more relatable to an audience?

Also, do you believe all choreographic elements (repetition, form, style) are needed to have successful choreography?

The author talks about all of the aspects a person needs to be a good dancer. He then goes on to say that there is no such thing as bad dancing, unless it hurts the dancer’s body. These two statements are contradicting, which one is true?

What’s the balance between the emotional and physical aspects of dance?  If there’s a dancer with superb technique but no feeling, is that better than someone who lacks technique but displays stark, raw emotion?

It seems that Saltz is commercializing art, which makes it seem very unimportant. The point of the Chelsea galleries is for the public to have a chance to see the mass of art that is there.  However, at one point Saltz says that it’s ok for your gallery to “be visible to just enough people with money” even if it is not visible to the general public.  How is this fair to artists? Doesn’t this contradict the very notion of art?