A choreographic lineage?

Watching an evening with multiple choreographers on the bill inevitably leads to comparisons being drawn between the various artists being presented. Sometimes lines are drawn between genres and in others choregraphic relationships are established. Last weekend's Icono-clan attempted to make a case for the latter. The evening's lineup:
Merce Cunningham Landrover (sections)
Gus Solomon Jr Statements of Nameless Roots
Donald Byrd Sentimental Cannibalism

Opening with Cunninham set the tone for the pieces to come (including Cunningham actually set the tone by just being included in the mix). From the movement to the music to the costumes, the use of choreographic angles and abstraction was a unique glimpse of who this artist was and his place in the canon of dance. Without a doubt he has been a solid force in the American dance scene and the chance to see why was a treat. His connection to modernism and Martha Graham (oh the angles of the body!) was distinct, but you could also see his tie into post-modernism in his use of abstract movement and a move away from narration. His experiments in choreography and the overall mise-en-scene settle him nicely inbetween those 2 movements.

The choice of Statements of Nameless Roots with Cunningham's piece was nicely curated. Here you could see the influence of Solomon's mentor with some additional flourishes and a softness that established the show as his own. The piece itself lacked the strength of it's predecessor in the evening and, over the course of a week, is now only memorable for its relation to Cunningham and the argument it made for the "clan" (although Solomon's label as an inconoclastic choreographer mystifies me).

The last bit of the night, Sentimental Cannibalism, is hard for me to comment on, mostly because I saw this piece in the fall and was disappointed to find it on this bill. Originally staged in 1993, SC is a reminder of the path that Byrd forged in the 90s (especially with the return to narrative, a raw sexuality and a heightened athleticism). I think I had hoped to see a work of Byrd's that would tie him more closely to Cunningham and Solomon, or perhaps something that would have made a better case for Byrd as "provocateur." Bits of the piece were innovative in their time, but, again, how this piece falls under a label of an iconoclan is confusing. Perhaps this was an iconoclastic piece in 1993, but times have changed and the title is not fitting in 2009.

Overall, watching the way Byrd and Solomon were influenced by Cunningham (both of them dance with him back in the day) was one of the highlights of the evening, in addition to Cunningham's piece. But is this really an "icono-clan"? I've got my doubts.

SIDENOTE - The placement of intermission begins to feel important in an evening where multiple artists are being layed out against one another. To be be the sole artist after the intermission implies an elevated importance. It, as opposed to its companions from prior in the night, should seemingly be the piece to entice audience members to stay. How often is this really the case though?