I went to see "Once" again on 12/3 after seeing it at its Minneapolis premiere on 12/1. I saw it again because I loved it the first time and because the movement and performance nuances were so intricate I had to see what would change.

Here is what I learned:

De Keersmaeker is absolutely performing in the moment as she performs "Once." It's much more than knowing choreography. It's knowing performance.

In a NY Times article she said "It is against the very idea of performance, to some with ideas." When I read that in late November I thought "No, no! I hate when artists say they have no ideas about their work/performance." I mean, how can that be possible? It makes my mind reel. My friend Oleg, a performance/dance artist from Moscow/Vienna says roughly the same thing whenever we talk about performance/dance. It drives me crazy (or did prior to 12/3). I always try to present him with the pure, absolute fact that of course he has ideas about what he is performing. Of course, there is something he wants to impart on his audience.

On 12/3, as I watched Anna Teresa De Keersmaeker perform I started to get it. I started to get the idea that "performance" is a word that hardly anyone understands (after 11 years of devotion to it, I am only beginning to understand it myself- which could speak to accessibility or the low income/fame ceiling in contemporary dance, but that is another round of thinking).

Of course De Keersmaeker has ideas about the piece "Once." She created it. But now it's even more, now it exists as a language from which she can perform. As evidenced to me through two viewings - she can actually say different things. She can speak beyond the content present in the piece. If she had come to the stage on 12/3 with an idea about how her performance would go she could have been thrown off her game due to any number of things - audience participation, a stumble - but, instead she used it as a way in to us - as another route through her choreography. If she had come with rigid ideas, she never would have allowed herself the pure moments that released themselves through playful, snippy, or motherly gestures/words/facial expressions that were not 'choreographed' (meaning they weren't there on 12/1).

To me this was more than "living theater" or seeing an experienced performer make choices. It was seeing 'performance' as an act of will. It was seeing that act of will be as important as content.

"Once" as a creation is separate from "Once" as a performance. Though it is choreographed and recognizable as the same "dance," though the set is the same, and the music is roughly the same (the audience actually has quite an impact on the music), De Keersmaeker can alter and sway it in such a way that it becomes evident that the performance is about more than the ideas you glean from content. Performance is necessarily detached from the world (content obviously is not).

De Keersmaeker started to dance on 12/3 from a different base -a little more fierce, a little more settled. There were altered starts and stops - a signaled language between De Keersmaeker and the person running sound. There was a whole song she sang that she didn't on 12/1 etc. etc. But these daily states and their shifts and a piece containing alternatives and 'performer's choice' moments ARE what 'living theater' is comprised of and I've already said there was more to it than that.

When there was laughter after the Baez text "And if you should find her (my lover) with another, here is a knife, bring me her heart," De Keersmaeker decided to tell us "Everyone thinks that is funny, but it's not." This was an experienced performer making a choice about how she wanted to relate to her audience and how she wanted her audience to relate to the soundtrack.

When the audience on 12/3 sang a rousing rendition of "We Shall Overcome" De Keersmaeker was shaking her head and signaling with her hand for the audience to stop (in the piece "Once" De Keersmaeker sings that song alone). It seemed to me she felt strongly that something about her piece was changing with that version of the song. On the next song when someone yelled out, "We don't know the words!" De Keersmaeker replied, "Shut up, you're not supposed to sing." She continued by having the music cut as she danced a section, then sang it, then redanced it as she signaled for the music to continue. She was regaining the performance. She was trying to let us know there was more to it then what we were allowing ourselves to know and if we let her do her job (perform), she would lead us.

She really had to work to get the audience with her, with this piece she created, and with this performance happening right in front of us (and not with a concert Joan Baez performed and recorded for an album). Yes, oh yes, the music was integral and important to this piece, but "Once" is not about singing to create community or peace (as wonderful as that thought may be). It is about the performance and the content of "Once." If the performance inspires an audience member to join or start a choir that sings to create community and peace - then that is one of those great ripple effects of an inspired work of art.

I disagree with the implication that the music and the words of the songs were more important or vital than the dance and that De Keersmaeker has "no choice" but to put her body and her content on the line in face of such songs - as if her body and her content couldn't also be about dying for loyalty, love, or work. Her body and the content of her work are what she deems them to be. I am positive that every moment of performance is open to a million interpretations. And this is tricky - because if any audience member interpreted "Once" through the songs, I would applaud their interpretation wholeheartedly, but given that this was De Keersmaeker performing and not Baez, why limit interpretation to song lyrics?

I love that Louis was inspired to feel that audiences can't just sit back and be entertained - I couldn't agree more - however, I don't think silence and stillness is an invitation to act (or sing). Yes, the performer leads (remember she told the audience to shut up after trying to get them to stop singing with a gesture and shake of the head), but many were not led by De Keersmaeker, they were swept away by Baez (which isn't all that bad of a thing in the scheme of things). My point is that if truly trusted, a performer can lead you beyond where you even thought it possible to go - yes, beyond even the meaning/memory/emotions present in Joan Baez's songs.

This is performance. It is nothing any of us know - until we meet a performance we can trust enough to let go of our notions about it. And the great thing about performance is that we get to do it each time we find ourselves in the position of willing audience member. We get to experience an act of will, separate from content, then we get to glean meaning from content we perceive - making it moving or memorable. If we continue the process by going home to think about it, to discuss it, to question it - then we're getting a hell of lot from the hour or two invested in watching the initial show.

At least that's my thinking.