Rudimentary translation of a post on Daniel Link's blog:
Much harder than interpreting a pose is continuing a gesture, and it's surprising that, even today, 30 years removed from his lamentable disappearance, Walsh's sayings and writings continue to be interpreted as if they were frozen poses and not indications which we should try to follow for our own movement.
What about interpreting a gesture? Shouldn't there some way of interpreting gestures without trapping them in history? Or is the work of interpreting already given some direction, by the gesture itself? Link might be saying this, but he associates (links?) gestures with continuation rather than interpretation. This is a much more bodily image—quite proper to the gesture—but it also does not seem offer much direction itself.
I don't know very much about Walsh, so I can't say whether Link is mistaken to speak of this "even today," a phrase which, for me, implies that these gestures could have been continued from the day they were produced. (I'm not even sure that this could actually be false, for any gesture, but there you have it.) If there's any hope here, it's in this idea of following. But does that mean keeping the gesture at some distance, probably historical, and treating it as an indication, or a literal continuation, getting inside the gesture and using it "for our own movement"?