The Ghost in the Machine
The first time I saw BIPED, I kept glancing at the dancers' feet. Were they real? The projections moved so seamlessly with the performers that my brain couldn't parse where the human ended and the digital began. Twenty-five years after its premiere, and Merce Cunningham had me questioning reality from seat G-12.
That's the thing about Cunningham—he doesn't give you time to get comfortable.
Dance Stripped to Its Skeleton
Here's what most choreographers do: they build narratives. They want you to feel something specific, to follow a story, to walk away with a clear emotional takeaway.
Cunningham said no thanks to all of it.
No heroes. No villains. No boy-meets-girl. No redemption arcs. Just movement, distilled to its purest form. In Beach Birds, a dancer tilts her head three degrees to the left, and somehow it carries more weight than a grand jeté in a classical ballet. The stillness means something because he's trained you to notice everything.
The Technology Was Never the Point
People love to talk about Cunningham's use of technology—DanceForms software, motion capture, digital avatars. But here's what I think: the tech was never the headline. It was a tool to get closer to what he actually wanted.
Movement without sentiment. Structure without story. Dance that exists because bodies exist, not because someone wrote a plot.
When those ghostly figures swirl around the dancers in BIPED, you're not watching a tech demo. You're watching Cunningham ask: "What if the body could do more than physics allows?" The projections aren't decoration. They're an answer.
Why Revivals Hit Different
Most choreographic revivals feel like museum pieces. You go, you appreciate the history, you clap politely. Cunningham revivals? They feel like someone handed you a puzzle with half the pieces missing—on purpose.
You sit there trying to crack the code, but there isn't one. Or maybe there is, and you're just not seeing it. That tension, that constant questioning, is exactly why his work refuses to collect dust.
Beach Birds premiered in 1991. I watched a performance last year, and a woman behind me whispered, "What is happening?" She wasn't bored. She was lean-forward engaged. Confused, yes—but captivated by that confusion.
The Silence That Screams
Cunningham often worked in silence or with non-traditional scores. No swelling violins telling you when to cry. No musical cues for dramatic moments. The dancers moved on their own time, independent of any rhythm but their own internal clocks.
That freedom is terrifying for audiences trained to feel this way now. Cunningham forces you to find your own emotional entry point—or sit with the discomfort of having none handed to you.
What He Left Behind
Cunningham died in 2009, but his company kept performing through a final legacy tour with a specific instruction: after the tour, the works would live on only through licensing and reconstruction. No permanent company to preserve them like relics.
That decision feels perfectly him. The work doesn't need a museum. It needs new bodies, new spaces, new audiences willing to sit in the unfamiliar.
I think about RainForest—those floating silver pillows designed by Jasper Johns drifting through the space like sea creatures. Imagine staging that now, in the age of Instagram and TikTok. Would audiences film it, or would Cunningham's strange beauty stop them mid-scroll?
The Question That Lingers
Cunningham once said, "You have to love dancing to stick to it. It gives you nothing back, no manuscripts to store away, no paintings to show on walls and maybe hang in museums, no poems to be printed and sold, nothing but that single fleeting moment when you feel alive."
That's the paradox. His work does leave something behind—but only if you're paying attention. The manuscripts and paintings and poems are there, written in space, lasting exactly as long as the movement does.
And then they're gone.
---
Which Cunningham piece do you wish you could've seen live? I missed the legacy tour, and Split Sides haunts me.
