Thank you for beginning this great dialogue. While I’m just the interviewer and can’t speak for MGM, as a dance-goer I can relate to the feeling of ‘being left out’ you describe, which is part of what interests me about Biba’s thought – what becomes possible when we allow space for indecipherability in performance, how do the the unintelligible and at times uncomfortable and unresolvable tensions we as audience members often find ourselves negotiating or inhabiting during and after a performance offer other kinds of experience that don’t necessarily make sense or exceed sense in the difference it produces? In light of this, perhaps it’s useful or generative to ask what NUT does instead of what it is, why it is, or what it’s supposed to mean?

I can certainly understand that this interview would not have put your problems with the performance into perspective, since the intention of our conversation was not to explain NUT, but to offer a window into MGM’s process of making work and the concerns, interests, and exchanges that sculpt that process. While this may not be the information you were looking for, I believe it is A perspective into the performative and more subtle elements of MGM’s work. But this raises another unsatisfied expectation — the imperative of reviews or interviews to make work more transparent, perceivable, or representable.

the reactions to NUT, in nyc, is totally across the board, and I am starting to wonder about how unintelligibility (as a participating aesthetic choice, or circumstance) could be a dimension, and where there can be a space for this.