Paris 26/1/06


Dear Janice,


I looked at the video and I am again very touched.

I won't answer directly your questions but rather speak about what I felt.


The first thing which strikes me is the simplicity of the movements and also the very simple and very direct way in which they are carried


I like that the movements are elementary, purified of any affect, of any psychology, of any symbolism.

The pure movement, essence of the movement.

And I like that they are made without any mannerism. What can often embarrass me in a professional dancer is the mannerism.


The movements are made for what they are, not more : to raise an arm, to take the hand of its neighbour, to move the fingers of a hand,

to lean on a wall, to sit down, to walk, to run, to turn, to jump, to go from a point to another... with the happiness of an additional smile

when one succeeded in doing it.

I believe that these people are in the present because they have an effort required to do what they make with an extraordinary


And they don't seem to be worried by their image they don't pre-empt a result which would be liked ideal, sublimated. It is there that I see

the beauty of the movement, a movement which doesn't look at itself, which is not narcissistic, which doesn't judge itself.


Robert Bresson says :

The only sight of a horse's movement gives happiness

and I add that the horse doesn't know that it is beautiful.


It also says about his actors that he calls "models":

"the important thing is not what they show me but what they hide me and especially what they do not suspect which is in them."


At the beginning of the cassette a man leans on a wall beside a dancer. They both balance the left leg then the right leg (we don't know

who imitates who).

Then a dancer and a woman arrive and stand besides the two men. At this moment the man looks at them. This glance interests me

because it is not planned. It is the consequence of what happens.

The woman beside the dancer moves the fingers of her hand and its glance sails between here (the fingers) and elsewhere.

There is mystery in the glance which is in elsewhere but we can't guess where is this elsewhere. It's precious. This glance opens us on a



The glances towards the camera are also very beautiful because we feel confidence and satisfaction.


These glances don't show pretence, they are glances at the present. It is a present which escapes to me and so attracts me.


I can't explain very well why the solo of this man who wears the Tee-shirt ' ZERO' in the museum and who walks along a wall exploring the

cavities touches me so much.

I imagine the same thing made by a dancer and that won't be similar. Why? Would a dancer do it so simply, so directly? With so


It is true also for the other things made in the museum, or in the park, or in public...


There is simplicity, concentration and we can feel that something is not able or doesn't want to go. Something escapes from the


Something is not completely or "perfectly" controlled: a woman raises the elbow less high than the dancer beside her but her gesture

appears more beautiful to me. It is not the amplitude or the flexibility of the movement which counts, what is it then?

It is perhaps that after the gesture there is still a space. A small piece was conquered but it remains still enormously of possible. We feel

the possible. It is done simply with a natural obviousness.


I will stop here for today.


Kind regards





other events

Publication of the conversation with Janice Parker


Download: Publication of the conversation with Janice Parker (English version)


cie martine pisani