[Cyclopea]

Very interesting questions!

Originally Posted by Passionaria

On a sociological and psychological level:

1. Is it easier for this young man to relate sensually to an inanimate object than to a real woman?
Not knowing the young man personally makes a definitive answer impossible, but clearly relating to an inanimate object allows the young man to purely express his internal sensuality sans human reciprocity.
Therefore his performance is a display of himself, as opposed to a display of his relationship with another dancer. Which begs the question: would he relate the same way to the chair in the absence of the voyeuristic gaze of the audience/camera? I think not. Chair Dance performed in public is always informed by a relationship between the dancer and the viewer.

2. Would he be able to dance for a real woman at all?
Again, he IS dancing for a real woman- for every man and woman in the audience. He is merely using the chair as a subject. As to the question “Would he be able to dance with a real woman as subject?” he presumably could, but her role as both subject and audience and co-performer (both for him and the audience) would change his choreographical options and choices.

3.Does an inanimate object such as a chair free a persons emotional expression, and allow them to express feelings more honestly than with another person?
I see two questions here. First, does dancing with an inanimate object rather than another dancer increase the honesty or purity of the artists expression. I believe I speculated on this in my answer above.
The second question I see raised here is the specificity of the object being danced with, that being a chair. As mentioned in a previous post, a chair is not interchangeable with other inanimate objects. The role of the chair is profoundly steeped in cultural memes, and has a relationship to the artist not duplicated by any other object. Therefore the second question is: ”Does dancing with a Chair, rather than another dancer increase the honesty or purity of the artists expression?” To that question I would say the presence of the chair immeasurably increases the honesty and purity of the artists expression as relates to those themes contained in the chair itself, as well as obviously the choreographic choices based on the physical structure of the chair in question.

4. If so what is the reason for this?

In a society that functions with a minimal amount of honest emotional interactions, where emotional repression is rampant as well as encouraged,is it easier to trust an inanimate object than it is another human being? Even if you lack the skills to express emotion and feelings eloquently, the chair will not judge you, laugh at you or reject you. It is a safe space to unlock your true feelings, and express them openly. On that level the chair becomes a tool for therapy and personal exploration.A "safe place" for creative expression.

Hope you are enjoying your weekend,
Passionaria

Again, I cannot conflate “Chair” with “generic inanimate object.” I do find it interesting that the young man at the office holiday party never once “occupied” the chair (unless one could hypothesize that a chair under weighted gaze actually becomes “occupied”).

Volumes have been philosophized about chairs, both occupied and not. It’s interesting that you bring up the unoccupied chair as a tool of therapeutic value and “safety” since whole fields of psychology have been devoted to the unoccupied chair, specifically or largely in cognitive and gestalt therapies in which the “empty chair” assumes an active role in the therapy itself, and a tool for the clients projection towards conceptualized others, parts of himself, and even towards abstractions.
Much of the study of ergonomics and industrial design is rooted in psychology as well, sometimes formally so.

The unoccupied chair represents profound psychological implications in all human cultures. The League of The Empty Chair defines these qualities as such: “emptiness/ unhomeliness/ unheimlichkeit/ lack of belonging/ uncanniness”.
It is these qualities that animate “Chair”, whether it is the unoccupied chair customarily present at all American Legion meetings, the unoccupied chair left for Elijah the Prophet at the Seder table, or the field of empty chairs that comprises the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial, where not only the presence of, but the size, shape, and positioning of each chair informs the viewer/audience/witness.
The occupied chair represents opposing qualities (homeliness, belonging, comfort).
At no time is “Chair” simply interchangeable with a generic inanimate object in human culture. And it is this specificity which informs the art of the Chair Dance.

Thank You for sharing your interesting thoughts on the Chair Dance.
And be careful out there apprehending perps!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtrIc8vq7wU"]YouTube- Don Mclean - empty chairs[/ame]