Contemporary Pretension

As the monthly meeting of the Board for the Contemporary Dance Association of Great Britain came to an end, a heated debate began to rage regarding the wording for February’s promotional pamphlet. Specifically the description that would describe a new performance from a duo of Australian dancers by the names of Charlene and Scott.
“Bloody hell, no. It should be described as ‘an exploration of the continuing contrast between extremes and all that falls between them.’”
“Rubbish. It is clear to see that it should read ‘A study of the difference between things and their relationships and lack of relationships.’”
“I see your point, Samantha, but I’m really of the opinion that we should stick with the artist’s original description: ‘Contrast, contradiction, frustration, fear, everything and everyone, expressed in the artists’ own language of movement and grammar of stillness.’”
“But does it really convey the artist’s intention? I think the whole thing can be described so much more succinctly.”
The whole group turns to Tim, the work experience placement from the local polytechnic.
“Yes?” The group asks as one.
“Well, it could read, honestly: ‘two dancers dance, interpret it how you will.’” There is a moment’s pause as the assembled group digests this suggestion.
“Yes, yes.” They assent accompanied by enthusiastic nods.
“Indeed, for is it not the reader who is the creator or, as in this sense, the audience who create through their interpretation of what they see. The act of watching is in fact the act of creation.”
There is a long pause.
Finally, the head of the table raises his index finger and draws their attention to him, “I like it, really I do, but with one small amendment. How do you find this: “Who is the dancer, who is the audience, and who is the creator? What is performance, what is interpretation? Two dancers dance, an audience watches; interpret one another as you will.”