Abstract
Participation in and development of Authentic Movement practice has captured my interest and study for the past 20 years. However, for some time I have questioned the, to my mind, problematic label authentic. Whilst the term has particular historical origins and rationale, it can appear misleading in contemporary practice. A claim to authenticity may imply a hierarchy between those who can move authentically and those who cannot. Thereby it might set up unrealistic expectations in those newly attracted to the practice. The label authentic can disguise the essentially participatory core of the practice. In this article I share my reflections on the name Authentic (Movement) and my reasons for replacing it with the new term MoverWitness exchange. This paper illuminates one aspect of my research included in my dissertation, Shared habitats: The MoverWitness paradigm (E. Goldhahn, University of Plymouth and Dartington College of Arts, Devon, UK, 2007).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
