The aim of this paper is the study of movement  expressed in the writings of a group of choreographers working at Arte Total, between  2012 and 2014 and their corresponding works. The study falls upon the movement that emerges when these two areas – Writing and Dancing – come to part in a series of variations. In these variations were considered students and co-creators, who struggled and showed difficulties with using – writing – as an integrant part of their creative processes. This is what motivated me to find solutions and answers. Deleuze(1990) states that the question between good and evil is not connected to the certainty of a response but to the way that the right or wrong question is posed. Only through a correct formulation, while not mistaking subjects (which are not meant to be mixed), can we find the right answers. Like so, freedom of thought depends on our freedom to formulate questions, while not mistaking subjects, based on our own interest in finding the answers. But how can one distinguish what doesn’t distinguishes itself from nothing when there is only significance when there is distinction? Is this not a basic rule of all systems of signification? Block and Clock are words with different meanings due to the presence of a ‘b’ in one case and a ‘c’ in the other. But isolated in themselves, Block and Clock have a meaning that can be understood due to its context and also with the help of a dictionary. In order to have distinction one must have comparison. A body can distinguish itself from itself at different times because it is two, three and so on,  instead of being one fixed body. Therefore there is a comparison between two states or appearances of the same body. It’s possible that I may not have clear in my head that which distinguishes itself from what I’m seeing, but, if I don’t explain what interferes with the unique body to the point where I, without a term of comparison, continue thinking that it distinguishes itself, one should expect from me a clearer explanation of what I vaguely see or feel and is absent without clear identity. In dance a body isn’t always assuming different shapes, remaining the same, therefore suggesting different bodies? So, the material itself started asking questions. Blocking common answers, they forced me to question and reflect upon the possibility of using other forms of proximity to the works. My temporary answer to my question was a method decision that didn’t deviate me further away from choreographers that I’m studying but instead drove me in search of an explanation outside of their studies. This brought me to the centerpiece, or just some aspects, of said studies through a mimetic relationship with some of their principles. In other words: the principle of the juxtaposition of apparently non-related elements, like dancing and music, nature, writing, fine arts, photography, video, purposely kept apart, leaving them to their own creations of connections that don’t refer to a main plot that defines it’s significance. The alternative was not only an answer to a question but a series of question that born from this combination of material. A “multiplication according to increasing dimensions” (Deleuze, 1990, p.27). How is it possible to deal with such difference and heterogeneity such as philosophy, choreography, writing, dancing, music, photography, teaching, and so on? In reality this is the most important question posed to me by my material because it regards the nature of combination in which I work.

Deleuze and Guattari (2004 [1972]) O Anti-Édipo, Capitalismo e Esquizofrenia, Ed. Assírio & Alvim, Trad. Joana Moraes Varela e Manuel Maria Carrilho. Deleuze, G. (1992 [1990]) Conversações, Editora 34- coleção trans., 1ª Edição Brasileira, trans. Peter Pál Pelbart, 7ª Reimpressão 2008. Deleuze, G. (2013[1965]), Nietzshe, Tradução-Alberto Campos, Edições 70, Junho de 2013. Mark Edmundson, Literature against philosophy, Plato to Derrida, A defence of poetry. Cambridge University Press, 1995. Nietzsche, F. 1999[1886]) , Para Além do Bem e do Mal (Prelúdio de uma filosofia do futuro), Tradução e notas de Carlos Mojurão, Relógio D'Água Editores, Março de 1999. Paul de Man, and Insight, Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1986 (4ª ed.)[2] Irony, London, Methuen, 1970, p. 63Blindness Souriau, É. (1969) A Correspondência das Artes: Elementos de Estética Comparada. Trad. Maria C. Queiroz e Maria H. R. da Cunha. São Paulo: Cultrix/EDUSP, 1983.