Why do we fear the obvious? I would postulate that the current machine of contemporary performance bans the obvious. Too banal, this might be too obvious, too simple was a refrain I heard during the Erasmus Intensive. But obviousness is in everything. And everywhere. Everything ever performed on stage could be stated to be completely obvious. Unless you were looking at a life form composed of unknown elements that you have never encountered and you weren't sure you were asleep or you were on shrooms and all you know of reality was short chunks of time and your personality had dissolved and all you knew was that you were not in a vertical position and rings of colored morphing spinning shapes circled around you. This is what the Mayans saw you scream to yourself in your head. I understand everything. It is all so obvious and I love it. I see the leaves and I know that they are leaves and that they are the source of food and breath for the trees.
But then why do we fear the obvious? Is it because we are not satisfied with what we have now, with the information that our senses give us? Is our fear of the obvious our desire for God, for a mechanism that operates outside of our understanding and creates something satisfying? If I understand the operation, if it is obvious and apparent to me does the beauty disappear. If I understand the metabolic pathways that convert sugars to alcohol do I get any less drunk? If I know that looking at my daughter causes a surge of oxytocin in my body, do I love her any less? No. I love and embrace the obvious. I love the obviousness of sweating, curving, spiraling, weighted bodies. I love unison, I love shit my mind has gone blank and the inspiration for this composition that was improvised in the pattern of typing with thumbs has dried up. Maybe I should have stayed on the tram and gone with the flow, ride the current and improvise within the composition until it ran out.
The two paragraphs above are the answer to the questions that are below. The questions are from Boyan Manchev, a philosopher who has been working with us at the HZT. The short versions of my answers appear after each question. I read to above paragraphs to my cohorts while walking around the tables that we all were sitting at.
Do you fear that your work is obvious, that the meaning behind it will be too readily apparent? Fear people won't enjoy the obvious
Is fear ever a good thing? Yes for survival, but not for the artistic process/sharing
Are you improvising when composing? Do you formally define patterns of composition? -yes and yes
What I forgot to write/say is that the unobviousness is in the intention of the person creating the obvious events. It lies in ourselves when we try to understand that motives of another human being.
12.17.2011
12.12.2011
S.O.D.A Assessment 101 Feedback
Below are the feedback discussion points I received from my performance of The Range of Acceptable Outcomes as part of my MA dance studies. The text for the piece is here and the framing statement for the piece is here. I added the numbers for clarity when referring to those specific points.
I am confused by points 5, 6, and 7. I thought a "sense of assuredness, certainty, demonstration of expertise"(point 5) was a good thing in a performer, especially one that is doing a performance lecture.
I also do not understand how "control...of material prohibits interaction". The piece, though a lecture, was also a performance. Interaction in the proscenium format is inherently limited. This could, though, refer to mental interaction. But then again, I refer to the lecture aspect of this piece. The point is to disseminate information is a clear(ish) manner that people can think about during or after the event of dissemination. Maybe I was so engaging that my performance inhibited all thought. I wish that were the case. With that skill I would take over the world!
And point 7 - "too few moments of fragility" Why would I want fragility in a performance lecture? It is not an emotional event, it is a lecture.
As those three points were on the list of discussion points and from my reading, negative, I assume that those were part of the reason I did not get a perfect score. Maybe if I had written a better framing statement, I would have received a better grade. But as those points refer to the performance aspect not to the relationship with the framing statement.
Also point 11 - the piece lost "momentum" and stayed in the "same frame of reference". I admit that my performing lost steam. A question of craft, that. But, as I understand the "frame of reference" that I was referring to - a lecture - always stays in the same frame. People sit behind a table, a desk and speak with the same tone and energy for the whole lecture. Every lecture I have seen so far during the S.O.D.A. program has been in the same energy and tone. Maybe the lecturers did not lose momentum, but they stayed in the same register.
Maybe with this, too, I should have been more explicit in my framing statement.
ahh, the learning curve...
Andrew Wass
Grade: 2.5 Very Good
Assessment 101 Feedback Discussion Points:
1- Appreciated humor and mental ability (word plays/associations)
-2 Are you aware of historical precedence of the 'style' of performance – the rhythmically structured
talking? Is this an attempt at “Leading audience indirectly?”
3- What is your context of investigation of zero point?
4- Categorization of parts brings attention to what is not there – experience of own choices not
evident
5- Sense of assuredness, certainty, demonstration of expertise makes presentation not easily
accessible (as audience we feel tricked, or that there was riddle we were meant to solve..)
6- Too much control in manipulation of material prohibits interaction
7- Too few moments of fragility
8- Improvisation vs choreography – in what way is this important?
9- Need to go into more ludic quality of text to enter into profound relation with these issues
10- Art is assertion of form – formal takes over – Form doesn't support gathered matters of concern
11- Performance loses momentum, stays in same register (no cracks) stays in same frame of reference
12- Need to sharpen own perceptive tools with how improvisation can be developed
13- Freedom and constraint – the relation of these two need to be more thoroughly investigate
14- Some clear questions presented in framing statement –for example: “how much audience needs to
know to enjoy the work?” “individual parts don't last but whole remains in memory”
Examiners: Prof. Rhys Martin, Prof. Kattrin Deufert, Litó Walkey
Tweet
I am confused by points 5, 6, and 7. I thought a "sense of assuredness, certainty, demonstration of expertise"(point 5) was a good thing in a performer, especially one that is doing a performance lecture.
I also do not understand how "control...of material prohibits interaction". The piece, though a lecture, was also a performance. Interaction in the proscenium format is inherently limited. This could, though, refer to mental interaction. But then again, I refer to the lecture aspect of this piece. The point is to disseminate information is a clear(ish) manner that people can think about during or after the event of dissemination. Maybe I was so engaging that my performance inhibited all thought. I wish that were the case. With that skill I would take over the world!
And point 7 - "too few moments of fragility" Why would I want fragility in a performance lecture? It is not an emotional event, it is a lecture.
As those three points were on the list of discussion points and from my reading, negative, I assume that those were part of the reason I did not get a perfect score. Maybe if I had written a better framing statement, I would have received a better grade. But as those points refer to the performance aspect not to the relationship with the framing statement.
Also point 11 - the piece lost "momentum" and stayed in the "same frame of reference". I admit that my performing lost steam. A question of craft, that. But, as I understand the "frame of reference" that I was referring to - a lecture - always stays in the same frame. People sit behind a table, a desk and speak with the same tone and energy for the whole lecture. Every lecture I have seen so far during the S.O.D.A. program has been in the same energy and tone. Maybe the lecturers did not lose momentum, but they stayed in the same register.
Maybe with this, too, I should have been more explicit in my framing statement.
ahh, the learning curve...
Andrew Wass
Grade: 2.5 Very Good
Assessment 101 Feedback Discussion Points:
1- Appreciated humor and mental ability (word plays/associations)
-2 Are you aware of historical precedence of the 'style' of performance – the rhythmically structured
talking? Is this an attempt at “Leading audience indirectly?”
3- What is your context of investigation of zero point?
4- Categorization of parts brings attention to what is not there – experience of own choices not
evident
5- Sense of assuredness, certainty, demonstration of expertise makes presentation not easily
accessible (as audience we feel tricked, or that there was riddle we were meant to solve..)
6- Too much control in manipulation of material prohibits interaction
7- Too few moments of fragility
8- Improvisation vs choreography – in what way is this important?
9- Need to go into more ludic quality of text to enter into profound relation with these issues
10- Art is assertion of form – formal takes over – Form doesn't support gathered matters of concern
11- Performance loses momentum, stays in same register (no cracks) stays in same frame of reference
12- Need to sharpen own perceptive tools with how improvisation can be developed
13- Freedom and constraint – the relation of these two need to be more thoroughly investigate
14- Some clear questions presented in framing statement –for example: “how much audience needs to
know to enjoy the work?” “individual parts don't last but whole remains in memory”
Examiners: Prof. Rhys Martin, Prof. Kattrin Deufert, Litó Walkey
Tweet
Protocols of Hierarchy
From the New Yorker October 31st, 2011 review of Margin Call by David Denby -
"It's about corporate manners - the protocols of hierarchy, the difficulty of confronting flagrant habits of speculation of truth."
Makes me think of contemporary dance.
The protocols of hierarchy - famous people can get away with crap non-famous people would be booed off the stage for.
Speculation of truth - how nobody calls anybody on their so vague as to be meaningless and therefore inaccurate contextualisations of work.
Tweet
"It's about corporate manners - the protocols of hierarchy, the difficulty of confronting flagrant habits of speculation of truth."
Makes me think of contemporary dance.
The protocols of hierarchy - famous people can get away with crap non-famous people would be booed off the stage for.
Speculation of truth - how nobody calls anybody on their so vague as to be meaningless and therefore inaccurate contextualisations of work.
Tweet
12.11.2011
Sol LeWitt
According to Lord Polonius which statement is true?
1. Sol LeWitt wore heels.
2. Sol LeWitt was short.
3. Sol LeWitt had small feet.
please explain your reasoning
Tweet
1. Sol LeWitt wore heels.
2. Sol LeWitt was short.
3. Sol LeWitt had small feet.
please explain your reasoning
Tweet
12.08.2011
11.20.2011
Quoting Finley
I wonder if the lead vocalist of L7 was quoting Karen Finley -
from Wikipedia -
During their performance at the 1992 English Reading Festival, the band experienced "technical difficulties with their audio equipment" and were forced to stall their set. Quickly, the rowdy crowd grew restless and began throwing mud onto the stage. In protest, lead vocalist Donita Sparks removed her tampon on-stage and threw it into the crowd yelling "Eat my used tampon, fuckers!". Sparks has remained unapologetic about the incident.[1] This has been referred to as one of the "most unsanitary pieces of rock memorabilia in history".[9]
Tweet
from Wikipedia -
During their performance at the 1992 English Reading Festival, the band experienced "technical difficulties with their audio equipment" and were forced to stall their set. Quickly, the rowdy crowd grew restless and began throwing mud onto the stage. In protest, lead vocalist Donita Sparks removed her tampon on-stage and threw it into the crowd yelling "Eat my used tampon, fuckers!". Sparks has remained unapologetic about the incident.[1] This has been referred to as one of the "most unsanitary pieces of rock memorabilia in history".[9]
Tweet
11.04.2011
The Erasmus Intensive
The Erasmus Intensive
The Erasmus Intensive invervates misuses of sensitive manures taken from unassertive mines. In the ruminative sense the interim suaveness gained by the universe's inmates of this masseur intensive reinvents a misuse of me, a intrusiveness.
What is your reading of this paragraph?
Tweet
10.22.2011
A fashion show is a dance performance with an emphasis on costume.
A concert is a dance performance with an emphasis on sound.
A construction site is a dance performance with emphasis on set.
A play is a dance performance with emphasis on text.
A fireworks show is a dance performance with emphasis on lighting.
A dance performance is a dance performance with emphasis on movement.
A presidential debate is a dance performance with emphasis on performer.
Tweet
A concert is a dance performance with an emphasis on sound.
A construction site is a dance performance with emphasis on set.
A play is a dance performance with emphasis on text.
A fireworks show is a dance performance with emphasis on lighting.
A dance performance is a dance performance with emphasis on movement.
A presidential debate is a dance performance with emphasis on performer.
Tweet
10.21.2011
Assume Perfection
I would guess that every famous painter, dancer, author, i.e., artist was derided as terrible by some authority or the authorities of his or her time when s/he first came on the scene. "Howl" by Ginsberg was thought to be horrible and people tried to have it banned. Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. Elvis was hated by parents for his pelvis. The Rite of Spring caused a riot.
But now all of those artists are famous, lauded, canonized. The works haven't changed. The context changed.
Therefore, all work is worthy of praise and deserves to be canonized.
All that needs to be changed is the context.
Therefore, do whatever the %#!?+ you want and wait for everyone else to catch up.
And assume it's perfect!
Tweet
But now all of those artists are famous, lauded, canonized. The works haven't changed. The context changed.
Therefore, all work is worthy of praise and deserves to be canonized.
All that needs to be changed is the context.
Therefore, do whatever the %#!?+ you want and wait for everyone else to catch up.
And assume it's perfect!
Tweet
10.20.2011
The port de bras and the coolest new lift you just learned in contact class have just as much to with contact improvisation as the fist bump. All three can be done while in contact and while improvising.
All three events are small bit of choreography that can be done inside the larger frame of contact improvisation.
Tweet
All three events are small bit of choreography that can be done inside the larger frame of contact improvisation.
Tweet
10.12.2011
Choreo, Memory, and Impro
The more closely linked an event is to memory, the more choreographed it is. The less connected to memory, the more improvised it is.
Tweet
Tweet
Framing Statement
Framing Statement
for
The Range of Acceptable Outcomes
I call this piece a performance lecture because I have definite ideas that I want to transmit. I call this piece a lecture performance because I want to inundate the audience with a lot of information, maybe some new ideas and I am not so concerned that people follow and remember every word, but more that the words wash over them, giving them more of a feeling than an idea.
In a more strictly movement oriented dance performance every movement is seen and rarely can the viewers remember or recreate the movements. The constant onslaught of movement in such a performance overwhelms me, not allowing me to digest each individual movement, leaving me with a general sense of the movement quality. The movements in relationship create a feeling, a sense, an experience that stays with the viewer. The individual parts are lost but the whole is understood.
In this piece, The Range of Acceptable Outcomes, I am trying to create a similar experience with the words. Not all of the ideas will be remembered or immediately understood, but hopefully a feeling, a sense, an experience will stay with the viewers.
Using the concepts of the Three Stages of Creation and The Six Performance Elements, I aimed to create an event to question the need to know the process of the creation of a work. How much does an audience need to know to enjoy the work? Does the audience need to know whether or not a piece is set or scored? Does the audience need to know what material the artist is sourcing?
The piece itself was created with a talk about "cracks" that I had with Jeanine last semester in mind. We were talking about one of my showings. For her the piece had no cracks, no way in for the audience. The inundation of information in The Range of Acceptable Outcomes - "facts" about the spectrum of choreography and improvisation, the asides, the stutters, the reference how this piece should be viewed, the quotes of Mary Overlie, Deborah Hay, and A Chorus Line - is an effort to create "cracks". Maybe cracks is the wrong term. Maybe tendrils or rhizomes is more appropriate. Some of the information in the inundation might trigger a thought or a question, leading the viewer down a pathway not directly connected to what is happening on stage. Poetry, if you will.
Tweet
for
The Range of Acceptable Outcomes
I call this piece a performance lecture because I have definite ideas that I want to transmit. I call this piece a lecture performance because I want to inundate the audience with a lot of information, maybe some new ideas and I am not so concerned that people follow and remember every word, but more that the words wash over them, giving them more of a feeling than an idea.
In a more strictly movement oriented dance performance every movement is seen and rarely can the viewers remember or recreate the movements. The constant onslaught of movement in such a performance overwhelms me, not allowing me to digest each individual movement, leaving me with a general sense of the movement quality. The movements in relationship create a feeling, a sense, an experience that stays with the viewer. The individual parts are lost but the whole is understood.
In this piece, The Range of Acceptable Outcomes, I am trying to create a similar experience with the words. Not all of the ideas will be remembered or immediately understood, but hopefully a feeling, a sense, an experience will stay with the viewers.
Using the concepts of the Three Stages of Creation and The Six Performance Elements, I aimed to create an event to question the need to know the process of the creation of a work. How much does an audience need to know to enjoy the work? Does the audience need to know whether or not a piece is set or scored? Does the audience need to know what material the artist is sourcing?
The piece itself was created with a talk about "cracks" that I had with Jeanine last semester in mind. We were talking about one of my showings. For her the piece had no cracks, no way in for the audience. The inundation of information in The Range of Acceptable Outcomes - "facts" about the spectrum of choreography and improvisation, the asides, the stutters, the reference how this piece should be viewed, the quotes of Mary Overlie, Deborah Hay, and A Chorus Line - is an effort to create "cracks". Maybe cracks is the wrong term. Maybe tendrils or rhizomes is more appropriate. Some of the information in the inundation might trigger a thought or a question, leading the viewer down a pathway not directly connected to what is happening on stage. Poetry, if you will.
Tweet
Text for The Range of Acceptable Outcomes
Below is the text for my newest piece, The Range of Acceptable Outcomes, a lecture performance.
Please assume what you see here as zero. A zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero zero on a multi-dimensional co-ordinate system.
Let us say this costume is zero, not because it does not exist, but is zero in that we will measure the change in the costume during this performance from this point on. ΔCostume, if you will.
In fact performance can be seen as the measurement of the change, the Δ over time of the six performance elements. The one performance element that will not change in this performance is the performer.
Though that is debatable. I will get sweaty, some skin might rub off, I'll age a bit, though we will all age the same amount so that we can ignore that variable. You as audience might decide to watch something, someone else, authorizing a different performer for your performance.
But anyways, let's assume that everything you see here in this moment is the zero on a multidimensional grid.
Should I stop moving or be quiet?
No, as I will not stop reflecting light rays into your eyes, through the pupil, through the vitreus humor, activating your rods and cones, etc. on to your brain and as I will not stop being present in this spot.
Or yes, stop moving, talking and you close your eyes, cover your ears to create an even more truly empty zero point.
This piece, as I see, it is conceptually choreographed but executed improvisationally. To relate it to the three stages of creation, exploration, experimentation, and execution...
well, let me back up, what do I mean by "it"?
The word it is derived from the Middle and Old English word "hit". Hit is a neuter version of he. The neutral he that I refer to is the performance that I have, am, and will present to, for and with you today.
This piece is not completely improvised because I already know what realms, ideas, genres, and themes I will be presenting and roughly how I will execute those ideas. I will be using the human form, using gesture, movement, and sound to convey those ideas that have been predetermined by time spent exploring, one of the stages of creation.
Side note - it is easy to think that these stages happen in a linear fashion - first explore, then experiment, then execute. And you will be forgiven if that is how you see it.
For all of our talk of contemporary this and post that, we really haven't changed in 5000 years and all still want a refrigerator to keep our beers cold. Whether it's avocado or stainless steel in color, we just want a cold beer.
But let me back up again, as I feel that I would be remiss to not define what I mean by explore, experiment and execute.
Exploration is the search before the research. It is the hearsal before the rehearsal. It is the discovery of what exists around you, whether you are in the studio or sitting on the subway thinking about your project. It is the discovery/invention of what tools you will be using in your project.
Exploration is the, and this maybe more important, the rejection of tools. A work of art is more about what it is not than what it is. Granted all types of infinities exist some are just larger than others.
Experimentation is the second stage. Once the tools have been selected/created, their relationships can be investigated. How do the tools interact? What poetry, if you will, do they create?
The final stage is execution - when the work is presented before an audience. I did use the words second and final indicating a linear relationship to time. That is the more traditional relationship, or more choreographed. The further apart the moments of exploration, experimentation, and execution in time are, the more choreographed the work. The closer in time those moments are, the more improvised the work.
This brings me to the 6 performance elements - Costume, Lighting, Sound, Performer, Set, and Movement.
The lighting is choreographed, set or predetermined. It is this, what you see. I chose this because this piece is not about lighting. Because the decision about what lighting to use and the execution of the lighting are separated along the space/time spectrum, we can call the lighting choreographed. If I were to decide midstream to alter the lights or have someone do so with a lighting board or open and close the curtains, the lighting would be more improvised.
I could have choreographed someone to improvise the lights.
As of now the costuming is choreographed. I am wearing this. You could say that I am trying to represent the traditional contemporary western male caucasian urban outfit with slight preppy undertones.
What happens to the costume during the performance has yet to be seen. In the midst of the execution of the performance, I might decide, consciously or not, conspicuously or not, to explore and experiment with the costuming.
Sound - the sound of my voice and whatever parts of me happen to hit any surfaces with enough force to generate vibrating airwaves. The idea of what kind of sounds to use is choreographed as I have decided to not use saxophone or an iPod or a parrot. What has a greater distance between its execution and experimentation is what I will be saying. Therefore more choreographed.
How I will be saying what I will say will be determined in the moment. The three stages in very close proximity to each other. Therefore more improvised.
This brings me to the performance element of set. No set, unless you count the empty stage we have here as a set.
But, I could create a change of set by changing the location of my performance. Going outside for example, or entering the audience. Maybe entering the storage closet and continuing there. For all intents and purposes the set is set. The execution, exploration, and experimentation stages for set all have a different location along the space/time continuum. Set, interestingly enough, is an anagram of est.
Movement - choreographed as in I can only do what my teachers have taught me. The times of movement exploration, execution and experimentation are different, therefore I consider the movement to be choreographed. I consider, though, the movement in this piece to be improvised within that choreographed frame.
I do not know exactly where I will be, when I will be there, what level I will be at, what body parts will be still, which moving, etc. During the execution of this piece today, now...now is here is harmony, something I do, something I see in an audience member, an observer/participant, though more on the observer end, will probably trigger a question. Will open up an avenue for exploration. I then might begin experimenting with the variables discovered in that exploration.
But as you are witnessing/participating/observing my explorations and experimentations, could we not then say that it is at the same an execution also, collapsing all three stages of creation into a singularity? A singular moment in which what I am doing is what you are seeing, when we are discovering the same thing at the same time. We merge becoming essentially one, but opposite sides of that one singular sensation - improvisation.
Coming back to costume. What ΔCostume have we seen thus far? How are the pants? The shirt? The tie.
Talk about a loaded image.
The inherent meaning. Yes, the inherent meaning. We all carry our inherent meanings around with us for others to read us and how we read others. Biases and stereotypes. Our aesthetic biases.
Two performers on stage (and this relates to the performance variable of performer): two men - discord; many men - war; one male one female - love; two females - a man is bad; many females - war is bad; two females and a man love triangle and he is an ass and one chick's a bitch; two males and one female she is a slut, he is an ass and the other guy can't get it up; two heterosexual couples and a couch - an Arthur Miller play. Three couples and a couch - an American sitcom. Four couples, a large tunnel made of brown sticks, a dog house and a table...
But as you have not seen the process and the time that went into making this piece, you can not for certain say which performance elements fall where when in relation to the stages of creation. Whether or not it was choreographed or improvised. Does it matter?
Tweet
Please assume what you see here as zero. A zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero zero on a multi-dimensional co-ordinate system.
Let us say this costume is zero, not because it does not exist, but is zero in that we will measure the change in the costume during this performance from this point on. ΔCostume, if you will.
In fact performance can be seen as the measurement of the change, the Δ over time of the six performance elements. The one performance element that will not change in this performance is the performer.
Though that is debatable. I will get sweaty, some skin might rub off, I'll age a bit, though we will all age the same amount so that we can ignore that variable. You as audience might decide to watch something, someone else, authorizing a different performer for your performance.
But anyways, let's assume that everything you see here in this moment is the zero on a multidimensional grid.
Should I stop moving or be quiet?
No, as I will not stop reflecting light rays into your eyes, through the pupil, through the vitreus humor, activating your rods and cones, etc. on to your brain and as I will not stop being present in this spot.
Or yes, stop moving, talking and you close your eyes, cover your ears to create an even more truly empty zero point.
This piece, as I see, it is conceptually choreographed but executed improvisationally. To relate it to the three stages of creation, exploration, experimentation, and execution...
well, let me back up, what do I mean by "it"?
The word it is derived from the Middle and Old English word "hit". Hit is a neuter version of he. The neutral he that I refer to is the performance that I have, am, and will present to, for and with you today.
This piece is not completely improvised because I already know what realms, ideas, genres, and themes I will be presenting and roughly how I will execute those ideas. I will be using the human form, using gesture, movement, and sound to convey those ideas that have been predetermined by time spent exploring, one of the stages of creation.
Side note - it is easy to think that these stages happen in a linear fashion - first explore, then experiment, then execute. And you will be forgiven if that is how you see it.
For all of our talk of contemporary this and post that, we really haven't changed in 5000 years and all still want a refrigerator to keep our beers cold. Whether it's avocado or stainless steel in color, we just want a cold beer.
But let me back up again, as I feel that I would be remiss to not define what I mean by explore, experiment and execute.
Exploration is the search before the research. It is the hearsal before the rehearsal. It is the discovery of what exists around you, whether you are in the studio or sitting on the subway thinking about your project. It is the discovery/invention of what tools you will be using in your project.
Exploration is the, and this maybe more important, the rejection of tools. A work of art is more about what it is not than what it is. Granted all types of infinities exist some are just larger than others.
Experimentation is the second stage. Once the tools have been selected/created, their relationships can be investigated. How do the tools interact? What poetry, if you will, do they create?
The final stage is execution - when the work is presented before an audience. I did use the words second and final indicating a linear relationship to time. That is the more traditional relationship, or more choreographed. The further apart the moments of exploration, experimentation, and execution in time are, the more choreographed the work. The closer in time those moments are, the more improvised the work.
This brings me to the 6 performance elements - Costume, Lighting, Sound, Performer, Set, and Movement.
The lighting is choreographed, set or predetermined. It is this, what you see. I chose this because this piece is not about lighting. Because the decision about what lighting to use and the execution of the lighting are separated along the space/time spectrum, we can call the lighting choreographed. If I were to decide midstream to alter the lights or have someone do so with a lighting board or open and close the curtains, the lighting would be more improvised.
I could have choreographed someone to improvise the lights.
As of now the costuming is choreographed. I am wearing this. You could say that I am trying to represent the traditional contemporary western male caucasian urban outfit with slight preppy undertones.
What happens to the costume during the performance has yet to be seen. In the midst of the execution of the performance, I might decide, consciously or not, conspicuously or not, to explore and experiment with the costuming.
Sound - the sound of my voice and whatever parts of me happen to hit any surfaces with enough force to generate vibrating airwaves. The idea of what kind of sounds to use is choreographed as I have decided to not use saxophone or an iPod or a parrot. What has a greater distance between its execution and experimentation is what I will be saying. Therefore more choreographed.
How I will be saying what I will say will be determined in the moment. The three stages in very close proximity to each other. Therefore more improvised.
This brings me to the performance element of set. No set, unless you count the empty stage we have here as a set.
But, I could create a change of set by changing the location of my performance. Going outside for example, or entering the audience. Maybe entering the storage closet and continuing there. For all intents and purposes the set is set. The execution, exploration, and experimentation stages for set all have a different location along the space/time continuum. Set, interestingly enough, is an anagram of est.
Movement - choreographed as in I can only do what my teachers have taught me. The times of movement exploration, execution and experimentation are different, therefore I consider the movement to be choreographed. I consider, though, the movement in this piece to be improvised within that choreographed frame.
I do not know exactly where I will be, when I will be there, what level I will be at, what body parts will be still, which moving, etc. During the execution of this piece today, now...now is here is harmony, something I do, something I see in an audience member, an observer/participant, though more on the observer end, will probably trigger a question. Will open up an avenue for exploration. I then might begin experimenting with the variables discovered in that exploration.
But as you are witnessing/participating/observing my explorations and experimentations, could we not then say that it is at the same an execution also, collapsing all three stages of creation into a singularity? A singular moment in which what I am doing is what you are seeing, when we are discovering the same thing at the same time. We merge becoming essentially one, but opposite sides of that one singular sensation - improvisation.
Coming back to costume. What ΔCostume have we seen thus far? How are the pants? The shirt? The tie.
Talk about a loaded image.
The inherent meaning. Yes, the inherent meaning. We all carry our inherent meanings around with us for others to read us and how we read others. Biases and stereotypes. Our aesthetic biases.
Two performers on stage (and this relates to the performance variable of performer): two men - discord; many men - war; one male one female - love; two females - a man is bad; many females - war is bad; two females and a man love triangle and he is an ass and one chick's a bitch; two males and one female she is a slut, he is an ass and the other guy can't get it up; two heterosexual couples and a couch - an Arthur Miller play. Three couples and a couch - an American sitcom. Four couples, a large tunnel made of brown sticks, a dog house and a table...
But as you have not seen the process and the time that went into making this piece, you can not for certain say which performance elements fall where when in relation to the stages of creation. Whether or not it was choreographed or improvised. Does it matter?
Tweet
10.10.2011
10.05.2011
Experimentationalistic Dance
Experimentation is the sending before the presenting. Pre...before, or occurring before in time...experimenting is the sending before the before sending...do a little algebra and sending equals sending. There proven, put a fork in it. We're done here. Where is that avocado with the beer in it?!?
Experimentation is also the setting up, the creation of known conditions, knowing what elements you have in play and setting them free. Improvisation is experimentation, the only real form of experimental work. If someone has set/created/ossified something, they are not experimenting in their work. Unless of course they are forcing the experiment into/upon the viewer. Create something known, a choreography, for lack of a better word send it before an audience or present it to an audience, a somewhat known entity (No, you say...really...don't you keep seeing the same people at shows and everyone is pretty much dressed alike...). The experiment is then what happens between those two entities. The problem with many choreographers who call their work experimental is that they don't realize that their work isn't, it's just trendy and using the adjective du jour. It would actually be experimental if they were thinking of their relationship to the audience.
Tweet
Experimentation is also the setting up, the creation of known conditions, knowing what elements you have in play and setting them free. Improvisation is experimentation, the only real form of experimental work. If someone has set/created/ossified something, they are not experimenting in their work. Unless of course they are forcing the experiment into/upon the viewer. Create something known, a choreography, for lack of a better word send it before an audience or present it to an audience, a somewhat known entity (No, you say...really...don't you keep seeing the same people at shows and everyone is pretty much dressed alike...). The experiment is then what happens between those two entities. The problem with many choreographers who call their work experimental is that they don't realize that their work isn't, it's just trendy and using the adjective du jour. It would actually be experimental if they were thinking of their relationship to the audience.
Tweet
9.22.2011
Contact Improvisation gets big!
In the not so distant future, within 5 years I'd say, a contact improvisation duet will happen on a stage. It will receive great accolades and fanfare. Critics and arty folks with indeterminate European accents and thick black framed glasses will talk about the brilliance of the choreographer, how cutting edge and brilliant she or he is. The choreographer will be praised for discovering new ways of movement, and entering uncharted waters of aesthetics challenging what people think of as dance.
But, the piece will not be labeled as contact. Improvised, yes, as that is becoming more the trend here in Europe on the big money stages. And the choreographer will personally not have done contact improvisation. The dancers, maybe. Probably a few classes. I doubt that a really famous and funded choreographer would know any people who are really good at contact improvisation, that bastard child of the dance art world, and would have to use ballet-gone-release dancers who can partner.
Using language riddled with isms and dead French thinkers names, this choreographer will bring the tools of CI into the brighter wider better funded stage. Using words ending with "icity" and words with "post", "pre", and "neo" suffixes, the choreographer will dazzle us and amaze us with a new dance frontier.
Will it be Forsythe, or Le Roy? Bel, maybe. How about Wade? Sehgal?
Tweet
But, the piece will not be labeled as contact. Improvised, yes, as that is becoming more the trend here in Europe on the big money stages. And the choreographer will personally not have done contact improvisation. The dancers, maybe. Probably a few classes. I doubt that a really famous and funded choreographer would know any people who are really good at contact improvisation, that bastard child of the dance art world, and would have to use ballet-gone-release dancers who can partner.
Using language riddled with isms and dead French thinkers names, this choreographer will bring the tools of CI into the brighter wider better funded stage. Using words ending with "icity" and words with "post", "pre", and "neo" suffixes, the choreographer will dazzle us and amaze us with a new dance frontier.
Will it be Forsythe, or Le Roy? Bel, maybe. How about Wade? Sehgal?
Tweet
9.13.2011
National Debts
The population of Germany according to the CIA is 81,471,834 (July 2011 est.)
The national debt of Germany is € 1,895,561,620,931 according to nationaldebtclocks.com
The population of the United States according to the CIA is 313,232,044 (July 2011 est.)
The national debt of the United States is $ 15,091,192,666,470, also according to national debt clocks.com.
Dividing the debt by the population gives us a €23,266.47/German debt and a $48,178.96/American debt. Converting the Euros to dollars with an exchange rate of €1=$1.36, gives us $31,642.40.
This gives us a difference of $16,536.56, that each American owes MORE to whomever than each German owes.
What have you gotten for your $16,536.56?
Tweet
The national debt of Germany is € 1,895,561,620,931 according to nationaldebtclocks.com
The population of the United States according to the CIA is 313,232,044 (July 2011 est.)
The national debt of the United States is $ 15,091,192,666,470, also according to national debt clocks.com.
Dividing the debt by the population gives us a €23,266.47/German debt and a $48,178.96/American debt. Converting the Euros to dollars with an exchange rate of €1=$1.36, gives us $31,642.40.
This gives us a difference of $16,536.56, that each American owes MORE to whomever than each German owes.
What have you gotten for your $16,536.56?
Tweet
9.11.2011
Fiddling
Currently fiddling with getting twitter and FB share links to be in every blog posting without having to insert the code every time. I think I have the twitter code in, but not the FB one yet. Let's see.
Also realizing that the iPad kinda sucks for content creation.
Also realizing that the iPad kinda sucks for content creation.
9.09.2011
Not post anything only pre
From an email to a friend - (with some additions)
I think that we are not "post" anything, only "pre" what is coming down the pike. I think that "post" implies that whatever we are past, what tools, logics, and aesthetics we explored in the past are over and no longer relevant. But love stories are not gone. Dances about the human condition are still being made. They are not being created with Graham technique, but with release, CI influenced deconstructed ballet choreography. So why if the logic(topic) of the piece is basically the same, but the tool used is post - or contemporary we do not call the piece modern? What criteria are we using to define work - the tools used, the logic expressed, or the aesthetic used?
Every age, -ism, and ide[a]logy that is created doesn't die out but becomes part of the available pallate(sp?) palette, incorporated in to what people have and can use, expanding the reified world.
We all get hung up in the details as opposed to viewing the relationships among the details. Heidegger, after all, said that existence is defined by relationship to.
Tweet
I think that we are not "post" anything, only "pre" what is coming down the pike. I think that "post" implies that whatever we are past, what tools, logics, and aesthetics we explored in the past are over and no longer relevant. But love stories are not gone. Dances about the human condition are still being made. They are not being created with Graham technique, but with release, CI influenced deconstructed ballet choreography. So why if the logic(topic) of the piece is basically the same, but the tool used is post - or contemporary we do not call the piece modern? What criteria are we using to define work - the tools used, the logic expressed, or the aesthetic used?
Every age, -ism, and ide[a]logy that is created doesn't die out but becomes part of the available pallate(sp?) palette, incorporated in to what people have and can use, expanding the reified world.
We all get hung up in the details as opposed to viewing the relationships among the details. Heidegger, after all, said that existence is defined by relationship to.
Tweet
The Conservative Rhetoric
Republicans have historically borrowed more than Democrats.
Who cares...Gay people shouldn't marry.
Our bridges, roads and other infrastructure are crumbling.
Who cares...Marriage is for only a man and a woman.
Our schools are crap and America is losing its competitive edge.
Who cares...Gay people are ruining marriage.
The polar ice caps are melting and the Earth is heating up.
Who cares...Gay people are brainwashing our children.
The so called "death tax" only affects people who actually have money.
Who cares...Gay people are causing the breakdown of the American family.
The politicians you keep voting for keep screwing you.
Who cares...Gay people shouldn't adopt.
We are running out of antibiotics.
Who cares...Gay people shouldn't be able to visit their partners in a hospital.
Our oceans are overfished.
Who cares...Gay people invented AIDS.
Solar, wind, and wave energy sources could be completely viable if we invested in them.
Who cares...Gay people ruined marriage.
Why are we still subsidizing the profitable oil companies?
Who cares...Gay people ruined marriage.
etc.
Who cares...Gay people shouldn't marry.
Our bridges, roads and other infrastructure are crumbling.
Who cares...Marriage is for only a man and a woman.
Our schools are crap and America is losing its competitive edge.
Who cares...Gay people are ruining marriage.
The polar ice caps are melting and the Earth is heating up.
Who cares...Gay people are brainwashing our children.
The so called "death tax" only affects people who actually have money.
Who cares...Gay people are causing the breakdown of the American family.
The politicians you keep voting for keep screwing you.
Who cares...Gay people shouldn't adopt.
We are running out of antibiotics.
Who cares...Gay people shouldn't be able to visit their partners in a hospital.
Our oceans are overfished.
Who cares...Gay people invented AIDS.
Solar, wind, and wave energy sources could be completely viable if we invested in them.
Who cares...Gay people ruined marriage.
Why are we still subsidizing the profitable oil companies?
Who cares...Gay people ruined marriage.
etc.
9.08.2011
The fear of being Understood
"As soon as someone says to me that they understood my performance, I become instantly discouraged." —Kazuo Ohno
This quote to me exemplifies what is wrong with most dance. Once it, the dance, the art is understood, the artist fears that it is destroyed. Why does understanding something destroy it? I remember once hearing a friend say that she didn't want to know too much. How can we ever know too much? The more we learn the more we learn how much we do not know. The more we learn about astronomy, the more we learn that there is an almost number of stars, nebula, planets out there to investigate. The more words we learn, the more questions we can formulate.
Ohno's quote makes me thing of the post I wrote recently about formulaic vs. poetic. It also reminds me of a quote I heard once but can't find anywhere about philosophers. Something like the greatest fear philosophers have is that they will be understood.
I think people fear being understood because they themselves are actually hiding behind a mask, a curtain. Like the Wizard of Oz. Yes, they can do what they do and do it well. But they want a bigger more grandiose image of themselves for people to see so that others will be impressed and so that they do not have to explain themselves, because that can be arduous and (cynically) they really can not articulate what they are doing/thinking/feeling. The next time you hear someone say that something was good or bad ask him or her to articulate why. Dollars to donuts, s/he will not be able to do so.
Why should we laboriously articulate our thoughts, when we can just express them emotionally (wrapped and bundled in signs, signifiers, etc) in a shorthand that leaves room for interpretation? If expressed clearly, we might find out clearly, that there isn't as much there as we would like there to be.
The imagination after all is more powerful, than...
This quote to me exemplifies what is wrong with most dance. Once it, the dance, the art is understood, the artist fears that it is destroyed. Why does understanding something destroy it? I remember once hearing a friend say that she didn't want to know too much. How can we ever know too much? The more we learn the more we learn how much we do not know. The more we learn about astronomy, the more we learn that there is an almost number of stars, nebula, planets out there to investigate. The more words we learn, the more questions we can formulate.
Ohno's quote makes me thing of the post I wrote recently about formulaic vs. poetic. It also reminds me of a quote I heard once but can't find anywhere about philosophers. Something like the greatest fear philosophers have is that they will be understood.
I think people fear being understood because they themselves are actually hiding behind a mask, a curtain. Like the Wizard of Oz. Yes, they can do what they do and do it well. But they want a bigger more grandiose image of themselves for people to see so that others will be impressed and so that they do not have to explain themselves, because that can be arduous and (cynically) they really can not articulate what they are doing/thinking/feeling. The next time you hear someone say that something was good or bad ask him or her to articulate why. Dollars to donuts, s/he will not be able to do so.
Why should we laboriously articulate our thoughts, when we can just express them emotionally (wrapped and bundled in signs, signifiers, etc) in a shorthand that leaves room for interpretation? If expressed clearly, we might find out clearly, that there isn't as much there as we would like there to be.
The imagination after all is more powerful, than...
9.02.2011
Formulaic vs. Poetic
The difference between the poetic and the formulaic is that you haven't figured out the formula for the poetic yet.
Tweet
Tweet
Abstract Industrialism
Watching my 6 month old daughter and how busy she is when she is awake made me think of the term abstract industrialism. Similar to abstract expressionism, abstract. Is there an abstract realism? Anyways. M. is usually quite busy, moving herself, vocalizing, grabbing things, putting her limbs and other objects in her mouth. Very industrious she is as babies if her age are.
Industrious - working energetically and devotedly; hard-working; diligent: an industrious person.
Wha she is trying to do, what her intentions are. I see that she has the book and is banging it. Is that all she is doing? Maybe that is all she is doing and I shouldn't be trying to read more into her actions. (see post about seeing vs. imagining)
Maybe what she is doing is realistic industrialism, and my confusion about her intentions makes it abstract. Hitting a book while shouting "babababababab" isn't abstract. It is hitting a book while shouting "babababababab". Nothing unclear there.
Which then makes me unsure about my original idea for this post. Which was - most improvisational performances are good examples of abstract industrialism. A lot is going on but no one really knows why. But maybe the abstraction comes from wanting to see more than there is
Hmmm must think about this more.
Industrious - working energetically and devotedly; hard-working; diligent: an industrious person.
Wha she is trying to do, what her intentions are. I see that she has the book and is banging it. Is that all she is doing? Maybe that is all she is doing and I shouldn't be trying to read more into her actions. (see post about seeing vs. imagining)
Maybe what she is doing is realistic industrialism, and my confusion about her intentions makes it abstract. Hitting a book while shouting "babababababab" isn't abstract. It is hitting a book while shouting "babababababab". Nothing unclear there.
Which then makes me unsure about my original idea for this post. Which was - most improvisational performances are good examples of abstract industrialism. A lot is going on but no one really knows why. But maybe the abstraction comes from wanting to see more than there is
Hmmm must think about this more.
8.30.2011
Emotional Improvisation
From an article on the movie "The Rise of the Planet of the Apes" in the most recent New Yorker:
"If invention, wild and free, yet tied to emotion and philosophical speculation, is given a chance, digital filmmaking could have a more brilliant future than any we can now imagine."
Replace the word invention with improvisation and digital filmmaking with performance:
If improvisation, wild and free, yet tied to emotion and philosophical speculation, is given a chance, performance could have a more brilliant future than any we can now imagine.
Taking the form of one idea and replacing some of it's parts can lead to interesting thoughts. Improvisation, as it is mostly taught and perceived, is about being wild and free. Emotion, as I read it here, is not the happy or sad generic reading of it, but the faster processing aspect of the human mind. An emotion is really a bundling of thoughts into one package. For some people, such as myself, those packages take a while to unpack. But I digress.
Ensemble Thinking is an improvisation based modality that uses the conscious mind to train the emotional mind. When on stage, a performer trained in E.T. doesn't have to think about where the hotspot is, but feels it allowing him or her to more quickly respond. E.T. allows the improvising performer to be more emotional about the performance.
Improvisation can benefit from more philosophical speculation - why are we improvising, when are we setting the number of performers, the costumes, the performance space and time, but not setting the spatial and kinespheric movements? What are we trying to convey, reveal to the audience? What do we want them to walk away with? Why should they give a damn? Is improvisation the means or an end?
"If invention, wild and free, yet tied to emotion and philosophical speculation, is given a chance, digital filmmaking could have a more brilliant future than any we can now imagine."
Replace the word invention with improvisation and digital filmmaking with performance:
If improvisation, wild and free, yet tied to emotion and philosophical speculation, is given a chance, performance could have a more brilliant future than any we can now imagine.
Taking the form of one idea and replacing some of it's parts can lead to interesting thoughts. Improvisation, as it is mostly taught and perceived, is about being wild and free. Emotion, as I read it here, is not the happy or sad generic reading of it, but the faster processing aspect of the human mind. An emotion is really a bundling of thoughts into one package. For some people, such as myself, those packages take a while to unpack. But I digress.
Ensemble Thinking is an improvisation based modality that uses the conscious mind to train the emotional mind. When on stage, a performer trained in E.T. doesn't have to think about where the hotspot is, but feels it allowing him or her to more quickly respond. E.T. allows the improvising performer to be more emotional about the performance.
Improvisation can benefit from more philosophical speculation - why are we improvising, when are we setting the number of performers, the costumes, the performance space and time, but not setting the spatial and kinespheric movements? What are we trying to convey, reveal to the audience? What do we want them to walk away with? Why should they give a damn? Is improvisation the means or an end?
8.28.2011
The DODOcase
I got a DODOcase for our iPad2. The thing is beautiful. It holds the Pad well, covers it completely and provides more impact protection than the tighter rubber/plastic cases available at the Apple stores and kiosks in malls. I have not done a test, but that is my guess.
When we first had the iPad2, I dropped it as I had gotten used to the magnetic flip cover and was using it as a grip to hold the pad while filming my daughter in my mother's lap. A quick move later and the pad was face down on the edge of the carpet between the dining room and kitchen, the upper left corner cracked and shedding glass. Don't get that cover from the Apple store. But go there if you drop you iPad. They might replace it for free!!
So three days and $65 later, my iPad2 is in a DODOcase. I try to take a picture...no go. Have to use the camera on the front side or pop out the pad. Also to change to volume, flip the mute switch, or turn off the Pad is not so easy. The curves in the bamboo are not generous enough and I have a not easy time accessing those buttons.
I wrote to DODOcase about the camera issue and button issue: Hi Dodo,
Was I accidentally sent an iPod 1 case? There is no hole or window for the camera on the back of the case and I have a hard time changing the volume or flipping the switch on the left side. The case looks good and protects my pad well, but I am surprised that there is no camera hole and that the side buttons are hard to access. Guess I should have read the description better before purchasing.
Andrew
This is their response: Hi Andrew,
After much deliberation the DODOcase design team decided that we did not want to compromise the simple and classic design of the DODOcase by poking holes in it. The DODOcase for iPad 2 does NOT have a cut out so that you can use the rear facing camera while in the case.
We think that in general the rear camera will be best used outside the case. The DODOcase is an easy in easy out case and on the occasion that you would want to use the rear facing camera it is easy enough to remove the iPad from the case. Folio style cases (i.e. the DODOcase) do not easily lend themselves to rear camera use because the front cover is designed to flip all the way back and would still obscure the rear camera even with a camera hole in the back cover.
Thanks!
Team DODOcase
Are they serious!?! Having a hole in the backside would not compromise the design. Punch a whole in it and rivet the hole so the material doesn't fray. And it would be quite easy to take a picture holding the flap at a 90 degree angle so as not to cover the lens. The DODOcase is not an easy in easy out case. I can see in just the few times that I have taken the iPad2 out of the case how the rubber corner pieces that hold the pad in are coming up. Doing that too much, or as much as I would like to USE THE CAMERA ON MY IPAD, will loosen the rubber corner pieces.
The designers of the DODOcase assumed too much about how the case would be used.
The DODOcase might have been great for the first iPad, but it is limiting the user experience with iPad2.
When we first had the iPad2, I dropped it as I had gotten used to the magnetic flip cover and was using it as a grip to hold the pad while filming my daughter in my mother's lap. A quick move later and the pad was face down on the edge of the carpet between the dining room and kitchen, the upper left corner cracked and shedding glass. Don't get that cover from the Apple store. But go there if you drop you iPad. They might replace it for free!!
So three days and $65 later, my iPad2 is in a DODOcase. I try to take a picture...no go. Have to use the camera on the front side or pop out the pad. Also to change to volume, flip the mute switch, or turn off the Pad is not so easy. The curves in the bamboo are not generous enough and I have a not easy time accessing those buttons.
I wrote to DODOcase about the camera issue and button issue: Hi Dodo,
Was I accidentally sent an iPod 1 case? There is no hole or window for the camera on the back of the case and I have a hard time changing the volume or flipping the switch on the left side. The case looks good and protects my pad well, but I am surprised that there is no camera hole and that the side buttons are hard to access. Guess I should have read the description better before purchasing.
Andrew
This is their response: Hi Andrew,
After much deliberation the DODOcase design team decided that we did not want to compromise the simple and classic design of the DODOcase by poking holes in it. The DODOcase for iPad 2 does NOT have a cut out so that you can use the rear facing camera while in the case.
We think that in general the rear camera will be best used outside the case. The DODOcase is an easy in easy out case and on the occasion that you would want to use the rear facing camera it is easy enough to remove the iPad from the case. Folio style cases (i.e. the DODOcase) do not easily lend themselves to rear camera use because the front cover is designed to flip all the way back and would still obscure the rear camera even with a camera hole in the back cover.
Thanks!
Team DODOcase
Are they serious!?! Having a hole in the backside would not compromise the design. Punch a whole in it and rivet the hole so the material doesn't fray. And it would be quite easy to take a picture holding the flap at a 90 degree angle so as not to cover the lens. The DODOcase is not an easy in easy out case. I can see in just the few times that I have taken the iPad2 out of the case how the rubber corner pieces that hold the pad in are coming up. Doing that too much, or as much as I would like to USE THE CAMERA ON MY IPAD, will loosen the rubber corner pieces.
The designers of the DODOcase assumed too much about how the case would be used.
The DODOcase might have been great for the first iPad, but it is limiting the user experience with iPad2.
8.26.2011
Gender in Dance
It has been said many times.
"oh, it's a man dance."
2 guys on stage, it's a man dance. Why, when the dance consists of all women (and 99% of dances made consist of all women), we do not say "Oh, it's a woman dance"?
Well, precisely because 99% of dances made consist of all women. Therefore a dance, by default, is a woman dance. So when a dance has all men or even a slight majority of men, it becomes a "man dance".
Heard this just the other day. In a group of what I thought were contemporary post whatever artists. But I guess not. They are still stuck on gender, on viewing a dance through the lens of gender. Dancers aren't bodies, creating shapes in space/time in relation to other, but men and women creating shapes in space/time. Have we not progressed beyond Martha Graham?
Or have the tools just changed but the story is still the same?
PS
Graham = Bausch = Stuart
"oh, it's a man dance."
2 guys on stage, it's a man dance. Why, when the dance consists of all women (and 99% of dances made consist of all women), we do not say "Oh, it's a woman dance"?
Well, precisely because 99% of dances made consist of all women. Therefore a dance, by default, is a woman dance. So when a dance has all men or even a slight majority of men, it becomes a "man dance".
Heard this just the other day. In a group of what I thought were contemporary post whatever artists. But I guess not. They are still stuck on gender, on viewing a dance through the lens of gender. Dancers aren't bodies, creating shapes in space/time in relation to other, but men and women creating shapes in space/time. Have we not progressed beyond Martha Graham?
Or have the tools just changed but the story is still the same?
PS
Graham = Bausch = Stuart
8.09.2011
Maybe...maybe not
Why do we say that?
If it, the situation might happen then it also might not happen. We don't need to say both "maybe" and "maybe not".
Save your breath.
Pick one.
If it, the situation might happen then it also might not happen. We don't need to say both "maybe" and "maybe not".
Save your breath.
Pick one.
Coffee and Orangutans
Just rolled into the Microtel Inns & Suites in Klamath Falls, OR. It is a gorgeous drive from Portland. Green, green, green, and not many other vehicles. Also the most remote wifi - 10 miles west of Oakridge, OR, on the 58.
Not sure how this popped into my mind, maybe because I was in Portland earlier today and had the best cup of ever at a Stumptown. If you don't know what a Stumptown is, think Starbucks before it went national. We bought some friends of ours some beans from the Stumptown Roasters cafe. Fair-trade they are labeled.
Oh, I remember what made me think of all this. Sitting in our gas guzzling F-150 truck in the parking lot of a Safeway. Seeing how far apart all the shops, restaurants,and homes, how large all the vehicles are, how fat everyone is, seeing how large the grocery store is, made me realize that the American way of life is unsustainable.
The great coffee my wife and I enjoyed in Portland,while fair trade, was grown in another country. How did the beans get to Portland? Were they flown there? Was It on a ship? On the backs of donkey led to the great Northwest by Juan Valdez? For all of our crunchy goodness and wanting to keep the world for our children, should we even be drinking coffee?
And then from the Safeway, my wife purchased some gluten free crackers. Very exciting to find those. As I was coming back up to the room from the truck with the crackers, I took a look at the ingredients. Palm oil is one of the ingredients. Palm oil, in case you didn't know, is, or rather the growing of trees for palm oil, is leading to the destruction of orangutan habitat.
You just can't win
Not sure how this popped into my mind, maybe because I was in Portland earlier today and had the best cup of ever at a Stumptown. If you don't know what a Stumptown is, think Starbucks before it went national. We bought some friends of ours some beans from the Stumptown Roasters cafe. Fair-trade they are labeled.
Oh, I remember what made me think of all this. Sitting in our gas guzzling F-150 truck in the parking lot of a Safeway. Seeing how far apart all the shops, restaurants,and homes, how large all the vehicles are, how fat everyone is, seeing how large the grocery store is, made me realize that the American way of life is unsustainable.
The great coffee my wife and I enjoyed in Portland,while fair trade, was grown in another country. How did the beans get to Portland? Were they flown there? Was It on a ship? On the backs of donkey led to the great Northwest by Juan Valdez? For all of our crunchy goodness and wanting to keep the world for our children, should we even be drinking coffee?
And then from the Safeway, my wife purchased some gluten free crackers. Very exciting to find those. As I was coming back up to the room from the truck with the crackers, I took a look at the ingredients. Palm oil is one of the ingredients. Palm oil, in case you didn't know, is, or rather the growing of trees for palm oil, is leading to the destruction of orangutan habitat.
You just can't win
8.03.2011
The Stage is a Test Tube
Imagine, if you will, a Petrie dish or a test tube. A test tube is a glass tube, closed at one end. Usually the end is rounded and the opposite end has a slight lip around the opening.
In a lab a test tube can be used many times. Many different reagents are added to the test tube; experiments are carried out. Acids and bases, metals. Water is split into hydrogen and oxygen; nylon is created. A vast array of experiments can be carried out in a single test tube.
If the experimenters are good and follow a strict protocol, they clean the test tube out each time after their experiments. This is done so that the reagents and results from the previous experiments do not affect the following experiments.
Yes, the information learned from previous experiments informs how the experimenters view the results of their next experiments. Yes, the previous experiments will affect what experiments are later run. Yes, what experiments run in other test tubes in other labs affects through the knowledge of the experimenters what happens in said test tube. But the experiment itself is not affected by the reagents of the previous experiments.
The empty performance space is a test tube. It is a blank space that can be a place to run experiments. What has happened in the space before, in other test tubes in other labs, does not have to affect what will happen next in the space. What has come before affects what will come next only in the minds of the experimenters - the performers and audience.
As performers, creators, artists, we need to recognize that a blank slate is possible. If we can clean out a test tube, a petrie dish, wipe a chalk board clean, we can also start with a blank(referenceless) performance space.
7.22.2011
What do you see?
This has been a question used in the past couple weeks of my MA course at the Uferstudios here in Berlin.
(please note the use of the word here, as I am in Berlin. This attention to detail is similar to the uses of come and go & of take and bring that are too frequently misused. )
For the past couple weeks, we have been doing an exercise of Susan Rethorst's , who maybe got it from Simone Forti. Who knows where it really came from, but I am sure people have consciously arranged objects in space for millennia. Did an exercise once with Mary Overlie in which we arranged white beans. The focus of that exercise was spatial arrangement. The focus of the Forti/Rethorst/Durning is quick decision making. (does it ever seem like so much of dance creation training is helping dancers get over their @#$%?!?)
Anyways, the exercise progressed from objects to people to solos. Each of us worked on something for 30 minutes (the exact time length varied each round). We watched each person writing down what we saw the person do. After everyone had presented, let's not say performed because there is just too much baggage around that word, we read what we had written about each person.
Somethings I wrote - read from notebook, put notebook down, close eyes, open eyes, place downstage heel to arch of other foot...
Something I heard - a heroin addict, deliciously slipping, time expanding...
After the feedbacks, I felt confused. Were we supposed to write what we saw or what what we saw made us think of? For the next couple weeks, we did variations of this exercise with a new visiting artist. The feedback was stated to be of two different kinds - what you saw and then what it made you think of.
Good, I can roll with that. But then when the feedback happened, both kinds were mingled, eventually the what you saw losing a significant share of the airtime to what it made you think of.
Talking in the Ufer Cantine with my cohorts - (paraphrasing not quoting)
"When you see a man and a woman on stage, you don't immediately think love story"
"No, I see a man and woman on stage."
I am baffled as to why in our post-modern contemporary age we would still automatically see love story. Am I supposed to see war automatically when I see two men on stage? No matter what age we say we are in, we all still have the same expectations. Love songs are still written and will always be written. The only difference will be the instruments and the notes.
But back to seeing...It took me a while to understand, but what everybody else mean by "what do you see?" is "what do you think of when you see..." And this is very dangerous territory. Just because you think something does not mean it is there.
Of course when I see stuff, it makes me think of other things. But when I am in a studio and I see someone sitting slumped against the wall, I see someone sitting slumped against the wall. I don't see a heroin addict, or a depressed business man, or swirls of pain an agony. I might think of those situations or scenarios, but I don't see them.
Are we not trying to be clear with our language and context in this MA program?
During the feedback after my showing on Monday, I brought up this issue and not understanding how people were seeing. This lead to a discussion of poetry...hmm not remembering so well, the connection to what I am thinking of...
but here is the thought anyways -
the need for the poetic, the dissatisfaction with what is there is the same need that has given rise to religion. People want mystery, people want there to be stuff going on behind the curtain and then they want to forget about the curtain.
People want to see what they imagine
Don't get me wrong. I want people to imagine whatever they want. But when we say that we are going to write what we see, let's do that. And then when we saw, we are going to write what what we see makes us think of, let's do that.
there was something else I wanted to write but I forget what it was.
And here is quote of a quote to provide some triangulation and provide some sand to build this house on -
'Ulmer affirms that Beuy's objects are "...both what they are and stimulation for the general processes of memory and imagination."'
We should not confuse the two.
(please note the use of the word here, as I am in Berlin. This attention to detail is similar to the uses of come and go & of take and bring that are too frequently misused. )
For the past couple weeks, we have been doing an exercise of Susan Rethorst's , who maybe got it from Simone Forti. Who knows where it really came from, but I am sure people have consciously arranged objects in space for millennia. Did an exercise once with Mary Overlie in which we arranged white beans. The focus of that exercise was spatial arrangement. The focus of the Forti/Rethorst/Durning is quick decision making. (does it ever seem like so much of dance creation training is helping dancers get over their @#$%?!?)
Anyways, the exercise progressed from objects to people to solos. Each of us worked on something for 30 minutes (the exact time length varied each round). We watched each person writing down what we saw the person do. After everyone had presented, let's not say performed because there is just too much baggage around that word, we read what we had written about each person.
Somethings I wrote - read from notebook, put notebook down, close eyes, open eyes, place downstage heel to arch of other foot...
Something I heard - a heroin addict, deliciously slipping, time expanding...
After the feedbacks, I felt confused. Were we supposed to write what we saw or what what we saw made us think of? For the next couple weeks, we did variations of this exercise with a new visiting artist. The feedback was stated to be of two different kinds - what you saw and then what it made you think of.
Good, I can roll with that. But then when the feedback happened, both kinds were mingled, eventually the what you saw losing a significant share of the airtime to what it made you think of.
Talking in the Ufer Cantine with my cohorts - (paraphrasing not quoting)
"When you see a man and a woman on stage, you don't immediately think love story"
"No, I see a man and woman on stage."
I am baffled as to why in our post-modern contemporary age we would still automatically see love story. Am I supposed to see war automatically when I see two men on stage? No matter what age we say we are in, we all still have the same expectations. Love songs are still written and will always be written. The only difference will be the instruments and the notes.
But back to seeing...It took me a while to understand, but what everybody else mean by "what do you see?" is "what do you think of when you see..." And this is very dangerous territory. Just because you think something does not mean it is there.
Of course when I see stuff, it makes me think of other things. But when I am in a studio and I see someone sitting slumped against the wall, I see someone sitting slumped against the wall. I don't see a heroin addict, or a depressed business man, or swirls of pain an agony. I might think of those situations or scenarios, but I don't see them.
Are we not trying to be clear with our language and context in this MA program?
During the feedback after my showing on Monday, I brought up this issue and not understanding how people were seeing. This lead to a discussion of poetry...hmm not remembering so well, the connection to what I am thinking of...
but here is the thought anyways -
the need for the poetic, the dissatisfaction with what is there is the same need that has given rise to religion. People want mystery, people want there to be stuff going on behind the curtain and then they want to forget about the curtain.
People want to see what they imagine
Don't get me wrong. I want people to imagine whatever they want. But when we say that we are going to write what we see, let's do that. And then when we saw, we are going to write what what we see makes us think of, let's do that.
there was something else I wanted to write but I forget what it was.
And here is quote of a quote to provide some triangulation and provide some sand to build this house on -
'Ulmer affirms that Beuy's objects are "...both what they are and stimulation for the general processes of memory and imagination."'
We should not confuse the two.
7.20.2011
7.18.2011
Formulaic Film
Hey, it's just like 300!
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/immortals/
change the bad guy, change the good guy...isn't this Star Wars all over again? Which was The Hidden Fortress all over again which was...
formulaic, yes...but wasn't also Picasso? He just had time to develop multiple formulas
ps
I wonder how long these links will last.
pps
here is a photo of my current writing process
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/immortals/
change the bad guy, change the good guy...isn't this Star Wars all over again? Which was The Hidden Fortress all over again which was...
formulaic, yes...but wasn't also Picasso? He just had time to develop multiple formulas
ps
I wonder how long these links will last.
pps
here is a photo of my current writing process
7.17.2011
Another definition of choreo and impro
Choreography and improvisation are both a set of rules to follow during a performance.
One is usually a longer more detailed set; the other is shorter.
One has a wide range of acceptable outcomes; the other has fewer.
One is usually a longer more detailed set; the other is shorter.
One has a wide range of acceptable outcomes; the other has fewer.
7.07.2011
Dance is a Visual Art
Here are some links to compositional ideas for painting and photography that I think apply to dance. Especially in relation to the instant choreo composition modality of Ensemble Thinking.
The Rabatment of the Rectangle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabatment_of_the_rectangle
The Rule of Thirds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
The Rule of Odds
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11475/what-is-the-rule-of-odds
Placement of Elements
http://painting.about.com/od/composition/ss/composition-painting-elements.htm
The Painting's Secret Geometry
http://www.francois-murez.com/composition%20en.htm
p.s.
if dance is a visual art, why are the people who watch it called an audience?
Tweet
The Rabatment of the Rectangle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabatment_of_the_rectangle
The Rule of Thirds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
The Rule of Odds
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11475/what-is-the-rule-of-odds
Placement of Elements
http://painting.about.com/od/composition/ss/composition-painting-elements.htm
The Painting's Secret Geometry
http://www.francois-murez.com/composition%20en.htm
p.s.
if dance is a visual art, why are the people who watch it called an audience?
Tweet
6.19.2011
Arts, as they descend into entertainment, cling to seriousness and sadness as a means of validation. This leads to dismissal of humor as less valid because it highlights the lack of valence of the performing arts as affecting any real change.
Descend into entertainment can also be read as becoming a commodity; appropriated by the capitalist market.
Descend into entertainment can also be read as becoming a commodity; appropriated by the capitalist market.
6.07.2011
Tour vs. Make
Hot off the mental press, coming at you live. As I ponder more and more of late about what to do in life, what path to follow or forge, all due to grad school and the birth of my first child, I think now about a binary of touring vs. making work. Is it even a binary? All these thoughts could be because I am just lazy and don't want to do the work of getting my work out there. Writing grants, making packets, sending them out, schmoozing with presenters is a lot of work. Work that scares me. Maybe scares me is the wrong word.
I see other artists who tour and get presented and looking at their work, I don't understand why they were presented, why the director of theater X gave them a 6 month residency. Must be in the documentation the artist presented, or maybe the kind of work s/he does is more easily marketable. Could be that my work is just not interesting. Don't get bitter, don't get bitter, don't get bitter.
And grad school, context, context, context. Shit in on context smell, a different context helps make food. So maybe I need to rewrite all my performance blurbs so the context is sexier. And then write the grants, make the packets, and hound the presenters. But for whom am I making the work? Because I work in a time based medium that can be viewed as performative, does that mean the work is made for other people? How many painters make work for themselves, and have studios full of canvasses not meant for general consumption?
And now a child! What a wonderful bundle of joy and confusion. Her laughter, smiles and cries make everything, all my frustrations disappear. But then they come back. Provide, provide, provide...that is what a parent, a father is supposed to do. Hack away at performing, etc to make money to provide. But then touring could conflict with schooling. School is still a couple years off yet.
So, do I finish this schooling, get my MA then jump out of the artistic realm into the academic realm to get health insurance, income to provide? Just as much chance of getting a big grant. Both require applications and schmoozing.
Maybe this is all justification for laziness. Artistic high road and all that. Even now all these thoughts/emotions I don't want to bother to craft into a polished blog post. But isn't this more just for me as a place to vent?
No one reads this anyways...
waaah
waaah
waaah
I see other artists who tour and get presented and looking at their work, I don't understand why they were presented, why the director of theater X gave them a 6 month residency. Must be in the documentation the artist presented, or maybe the kind of work s/he does is more easily marketable. Could be that my work is just not interesting. Don't get bitter, don't get bitter, don't get bitter.
And grad school, context, context, context. Shit in on context smell, a different context helps make food. So maybe I need to rewrite all my performance blurbs so the context is sexier. And then write the grants, make the packets, and hound the presenters. But for whom am I making the work? Because I work in a time based medium that can be viewed as performative, does that mean the work is made for other people? How many painters make work for themselves, and have studios full of canvasses not meant for general consumption?
And now a child! What a wonderful bundle of joy and confusion. Her laughter, smiles and cries make everything, all my frustrations disappear. But then they come back. Provide, provide, provide...that is what a parent, a father is supposed to do. Hack away at performing, etc to make money to provide. But then touring could conflict with schooling. School is still a couple years off yet.
So, do I finish this schooling, get my MA then jump out of the artistic realm into the academic realm to get health insurance, income to provide? Just as much chance of getting a big grant. Both require applications and schmoozing.
Maybe this is all justification for laziness. Artistic high road and all that. Even now all these thoughts/emotions I don't want to bother to craft into a polished blog post. But isn't this more just for me as a place to vent?
No one reads this anyways...
waaah
waaah
waaah
5.24.2011
What is it?
Flo eminates from the kitchen.
Grub is collated frantically.
Foxy lemmings kite checks.
Worst Oma eliminates four tiny kittens.
Bald Mary stems collegial fraternizing.
The rebar knows kind chicks.
A kangaroo taps foul Tibetan koans.
The wild bran challah collective failed.
We all got tan in Kay's chalet.
The tilted atrium failed the kinetic colloquial festival king's child.
Tweet
Grub is collated frantically.
Foxy lemmings kite checks.
Worst Oma eliminates four tiny kittens.
Bald Mary stems collegial fraternizing.
The rebar knows kind chicks.
A kangaroo taps foul Tibetan koans.
The wild bran challah collective failed.
We all got tan in Kay's chalet.
The tilted atrium failed the kinetic colloquial festival king's child.
Tweet
5.23.2011
5.22.2011
The Need for Context
The need for contextualization exists because humans can not free themselves from the good-bad binary. That being said, contextualization is also needed because we are now in a post-disciplinary moment. How long that moment will last is another question.
Because we are in a post-disciplinary time and still are saddled with the evaluative binary, we need contextualization to help us determine where a given work of art/documentation/performance/representation lies on that spectrum. For better or worse, we are no longer saddled (not really but roll with it) with the evaluative binaries of disciplines, which are themselves shorthands for contextualization.
Tweet
Because we are in a post-disciplinary time and still are saddled with the evaluative binary, we need contextualization to help us determine where a given work of art/documentation/performance/representation lies on that spectrum. For better or worse, we are no longer saddled (not really but roll with it) with the evaluative binaries of disciplines, which are themselves shorthands for contextualization.
Tweet
5.15.2011
Osama
Hmm...Osama is now dead and his body was dumped out to see. Of course, the U.S. military observed strict Islamic protocol before they dumped his body. So as not to enrage anyone. When are the photos of the Navy Seals or Delta Force or whoever caught him going to surface? The photos with the soldiers posing with empty beer cans, hot dogs and Osama's dead body?
That question aside, I think it is quite remarkable that the US found him without co-operation by the Pakistani government. We give them billions every year, his compound was within spitting distance of a Pakistani military base. What I bet happened is that the Pakistani government co-operated fully with the understanding that the US government would make a big stink about how they received no co-operation. That way the Pakistani government gets full deniability(sp?) and the US gets Osama. A win-win situation. Yes, there have been some deaths due to do protests/retaliations by Osama supporters.
But imagine how much worse it would have been if the Pakistani government had publicly supported his capture and been excited by his death?
Also, what happened to due process of law and trial by a jury of peers? Or are those not unalienable self-evident rights...?
Tweet
That question aside, I think it is quite remarkable that the US found him without co-operation by the Pakistani government. We give them billions every year, his compound was within spitting distance of a Pakistani military base. What I bet happened is that the Pakistani government co-operated fully with the understanding that the US government would make a big stink about how they received no co-operation. That way the Pakistani government gets full deniability(sp?) and the US gets Osama. A win-win situation. Yes, there have been some deaths due to do protests/retaliations by Osama supporters.
But imagine how much worse it would have been if the Pakistani government had publicly supported his capture and been excited by his death?
Also, what happened to due process of law and trial by a jury of peers? Or are those not unalienable self-evident rights...?
Tweet
5.05.2011
John Cleese on Terrorism
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved."
Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 400 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Three more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!", "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.
Tweet
Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 400 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Three more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!", "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.
Tweet
5.02.2011
There is no bad art. Only bad craft.
Recently tweeted that. It is another iteration of the burrito/taco/shoe/title idea.
Craft as defined by dictionary.com is - an occupation requiring special skill. It is also a verb defined as - to make or manufacture.
Craft, then, we could say is to make or manufacture something requiring a special skill.
Art, coming from the Latin ars, means craftmanship. But why go back to the roots of the words. Useful? Maybe, but the meaning and relationships to those meanings change with fashions and trends of the day. (insert appropriate dead French philosopher quote here).
I prefer to use my relationship to these words now. Art and artificial, similar, no? For me art is anything that is intentionally created, something that did not already exist in nature. Nature is the opposite of art (insert dead German philosopher quote here). To create art, all one has to do is something, anything.
Craft, on the other hand, has a set of skills and expectations. To craft a chair from walnut wood and leather requires a certain set of skills - cutting, measuring, sanding, staining - that must be executed in order to create an object that can fulfill a certain function. In this case, someone has to be able to sit in the chair. If the chair cannot fulfill this expectation - it breaks, hurts the person sitting in it, isn't comfortable - it is not a very good chair.
Another layer of craft, the visual component, then, comes into question. Does the viewer like the way the chair looks.
Hmm...just had the thought that craft is many layers of either/or statements.
Art, on the other hand, is a henna tattoo for an Indian wedding. Yes, and doesn't have the same level of either/ors. In relation to dance, many dancers are more craftspeople. They spend many hours trying to get a specific sequence down pat. They are not creating anything new, they are not creating anything artificial, but crafting, getting the either/or statements as correct as possible. They are simultaneously creating and defining an infinite number of either/or statements.
Art happens before craft. Only down the road, as time passes, does craft come into being.
Tweet
Craft as defined by dictionary.com is - an occupation requiring special skill. It is also a verb defined as - to make or manufacture.
Craft, then, we could say is to make or manufacture something requiring a special skill.
Art, coming from the Latin ars, means craftmanship. But why go back to the roots of the words. Useful? Maybe, but the meaning and relationships to those meanings change with fashions and trends of the day. (insert appropriate dead French philosopher quote here).
I prefer to use my relationship to these words now. Art and artificial, similar, no? For me art is anything that is intentionally created, something that did not already exist in nature. Nature is the opposite of art (insert dead German philosopher quote here). To create art, all one has to do is something, anything.
Craft, on the other hand, has a set of skills and expectations. To craft a chair from walnut wood and leather requires a certain set of skills - cutting, measuring, sanding, staining - that must be executed in order to create an object that can fulfill a certain function. In this case, someone has to be able to sit in the chair. If the chair cannot fulfill this expectation - it breaks, hurts the person sitting in it, isn't comfortable - it is not a very good chair.
Another layer of craft, the visual component, then, comes into question. Does the viewer like the way the chair looks.
Hmm...just had the thought that craft is many layers of either/or statements.
Art, on the other hand, is a henna tattoo for an Indian wedding. Yes, and doesn't have the same level of either/ors. In relation to dance, many dancers are more craftspeople. They spend many hours trying to get a specific sequence down pat. They are not creating anything new, they are not creating anything artificial, but crafting, getting the either/or statements as correct as possible. They are simultaneously creating and defining an infinite number of either/or statements.
Art happens before craft. Only down the road, as time passes, does craft come into being.
Tweet
4.24.2011
3.31.2011
Definitions of C and I
Choreography:
That which has a higher degree of reproducibilty a larger percentage of the time.
Improvisation:
That which has a lower degree of reproducibility a smaller percentage of the time.
Tweet
That which has a higher degree of reproducibilty a larger percentage of the time.
Improvisation:
That which has a lower degree of reproducibility a smaller percentage of the time.
Tweet
1.27.2011
Sidewalks
I had the thought yesterday or maybe it was the day before that. Sidewalks, their width and culture of a city.
My basic thought is that the wider the sidewalks in a city, the more interesting the city. New York and Berlin have wide sidewalks and are very interesting cities. San Francisco is also an interesting city and the sidewalks are not as wide as Berlin's and New York's. This follows as San Francisco is not as interesting as either of this cities.
Austin, though, has terrible sidewalks. At least the parts I have visited. In one area, the sidewalks disappeared and my wife and I were almost hit by a car. Other parts of Austin that I visited were quite interesting.
This small modicum of data made me change my hypothesis to the amount of foot traffic. The more foot traffic a city or section of a city has, the more interesting that city or city section is. People like to look at each other, no? The most popular shows have little activity in them and it's just people sitting around talking, giving the viewers plenty of time to just stare at other people.
Foot traffic, it's all about the foot traffic. The more a city has of it, the more interesting it will be. The more interesting a city is, the more people will flock to it. The more people flock to it...you get the idea
Tweet
My basic thought is that the wider the sidewalks in a city, the more interesting the city. New York and Berlin have wide sidewalks and are very interesting cities. San Francisco is also an interesting city and the sidewalks are not as wide as Berlin's and New York's. This follows as San Francisco is not as interesting as either of this cities.
Austin, though, has terrible sidewalks. At least the parts I have visited. In one area, the sidewalks disappeared and my wife and I were almost hit by a car. Other parts of Austin that I visited were quite interesting.
This small modicum of data made me change my hypothesis to the amount of foot traffic. The more foot traffic a city or section of a city has, the more interesting that city or city section is. People like to look at each other, no? The most popular shows have little activity in them and it's just people sitting around talking, giving the viewers plenty of time to just stare at other people.
Foot traffic, it's all about the foot traffic. The more a city has of it, the more interesting it will be. The more interesting a city is, the more people will flock to it. The more people flock to it...you get the idea
Tweet
1.24.2011
Federal Oversight
I am not sure about the Republican argument against Obama's socialist takeover/makeover of healthcare in the United States, something about how the Constitution doesn't allow for the Federal Government to require people to have health insurance.
SIDE NOTE - Please check what the Constitution has to say about marijuana (nothing, yes?) and the internet (nothing).
And from what I know, the Federal Government has the right to oversee and regulate businesses that cross state lines. I don't think there is a national health care commission. There is a person who oversees insurance in California. Maybe other states have such an office.
I can't imagine that the health care in any state does not cross state lines in many ways. The doctors are educated in another state. The test tubes, pipettes and needles are probably made in China. All the diagnostic equipment - MRIs, Ultrasounds etcs - if not made in another state of the Union or Germany are probably made in China. The billing services that the health insurance companies use probably are involved in more than one company and one state. The patients who get sick are crossing state lines bringing illness home from other states. Food, a known vehicle of pathogens (spinach, eggs to name a couple of recent vectors) crosses many states lines.
With all of this interstate business involved in the business of health care, shouldn't the Feds be involved to make sure it all runs smoothly? Maybe they already are, but if so, they sure are doing a crappy job.
Tweet
SIDE NOTE - Please check what the Constitution has to say about marijuana (nothing, yes?) and the internet (nothing).
And from what I know, the Federal Government has the right to oversee and regulate businesses that cross state lines. I don't think there is a national health care commission. There is a person who oversees insurance in California. Maybe other states have such an office.
I can't imagine that the health care in any state does not cross state lines in many ways. The doctors are educated in another state. The test tubes, pipettes and needles are probably made in China. All the diagnostic equipment - MRIs, Ultrasounds etcs - if not made in another state of the Union or Germany are probably made in China. The billing services that the health insurance companies use probably are involved in more than one company and one state. The patients who get sick are crossing state lines bringing illness home from other states. Food, a known vehicle of pathogens (spinach, eggs to name a couple of recent vectors) crosses many states lines.
With all of this interstate business involved in the business of health care, shouldn't the Feds be involved to make sure it all runs smoothly? Maybe they already are, but if so, they sure are doing a crappy job.
Tweet
1.23.2011
Critique of piece I saw during the S.O.D.A. audition
In order to relate what I saw without being descriptive I will offer a short list of whats that I saw:
1. a tattoo
2. a cube
3. black tape
4. gestures
5. white tape
6. a hypodermic needle
7. blood
My feedback about the piece would be to simplify. The piece has at least three different pieces in it - Man with Cube, Man with Tape and Man with Needle. He should pick one of them and investigate it more deeply. I would suggest that he keep his manipulation of the tape to a minimum and not rearrange the tape once it is on the wall. Also I would suggest that the black tape movement section occur further downstage facing the audience. The tape is already abstract and geometric and his focal and spatial choices re-enforced that. Maybe it was his intention to replicate the impersonal nature of the tape. But what I saw was more of a coping mechanism than an artistic choice.
Black tape plus movement plus white tape plus the downstage space plus low level movement plus text plus needle plus blood. Eight dimensions in all. Is this piece, then, about the progression towards the multidimensional, the ultra dimensional he said he was seeking? I do not know. I can not say whether or not this piece worked as I do not know what he was trying to achieve. I can say whether or not I liked the piece. I did not. But whether or not I liked it is of little importance. I can say what it made me think of. The use of the cube made me think of Donald Judd. The black tape pictographs on the white wall made me think of Lawrence Wiener and Robert Motherwell. The piercing of the skin made me think of Chris Burden and Marina Abramovic.
Any of these references, though, is at best a stretch and more present in my perception of the performance than in Riccardo’s presentation of the piece. This brings up the question of what does an audience need to know about the work. Do we need to know what the artist knows? Do we need to have the same frame of reference? Do we need those references to get out of the piece what the artist put into the piece? Is it important for the viewers to get what the artist is saying? Or is the artist creating something for us the respond to with our own references?
Despite not liking it, I feel that of the pieces I saw yesterday this piece had the richest vocabulary to be investigated. And I intend on taking his Man with Tape piece and investigating it further.
Tweet
1. a tattoo
2. a cube
3. black tape
4. gestures
5. white tape
6. a hypodermic needle
7. blood
My feedback about the piece would be to simplify. The piece has at least three different pieces in it - Man with Cube, Man with Tape and Man with Needle. He should pick one of them and investigate it more deeply. I would suggest that he keep his manipulation of the tape to a minimum and not rearrange the tape once it is on the wall. Also I would suggest that the black tape movement section occur further downstage facing the audience. The tape is already abstract and geometric and his focal and spatial choices re-enforced that. Maybe it was his intention to replicate the impersonal nature of the tape. But what I saw was more of a coping mechanism than an artistic choice.
Black tape plus movement plus white tape plus the downstage space plus low level movement plus text plus needle plus blood. Eight dimensions in all. Is this piece, then, about the progression towards the multidimensional, the ultra dimensional he said he was seeking? I do not know. I can not say whether or not this piece worked as I do not know what he was trying to achieve. I can say whether or not I liked the piece. I did not. But whether or not I liked it is of little importance. I can say what it made me think of. The use of the cube made me think of Donald Judd. The black tape pictographs on the white wall made me think of Lawrence Wiener and Robert Motherwell. The piercing of the skin made me think of Chris Burden and Marina Abramovic.
Any of these references, though, is at best a stretch and more present in my perception of the performance than in Riccardo’s presentation of the piece. This brings up the question of what does an audience need to know about the work. Do we need to know what the artist knows? Do we need to have the same frame of reference? Do we need those references to get out of the piece what the artist put into the piece? Is it important for the viewers to get what the artist is saying? Or is the artist creating something for us the respond to with our own references?
Despite not liking it, I feel that of the pieces I saw yesterday this piece had the richest vocabulary to be investigated. And I intend on taking his Man with Tape piece and investigating it further.
Tweet
1.07.2011
Critique for SODA application
Below is a reworked critique of a dance piece I saw in 2009. This was part of my application for the SODA program here in Berlin. Here is the "original"
Accords by Thomas Hauert/Zoo, which I saw last summer during Tanz im August, consisted of sections delineated by performers entering or exiting the stage through the spaces between the back panels. The movements within these sections were governed by either the simultaneous initiating and halting of movement, flocking, or awkward partnering. Flocking is when people move in a clump changing spacing/facing with no discernible leader. Awkward partnering is skilled bodies coming in contact in an improvised manner consciously eschewing the Contact Improvisation movement paradigm.
As someone who performs and teaches the tool of improvisation, I appreciated the clarity in this improvised performance. It is very satisfying to see an improvised piece by people who have been working together for more than just a handful of rehearsals. All to often, improvised performances have three rehearsals. During the first one, half of the group doesn't show and the half who are there just talk. For the second rehearsal 80% of the cast is there and some dancing actually happens. The third rehearsal is on stage in front of the audience, i.e., the performance. In Accords, the hours sweating together in the studio came through during the performance. I saw no moments of searching or moments of awkwardness when performers are in between inspirations.
Dance improvisation is a nascent art form. Because of this, there are many assumptions about improvisation and its uses. The three main assumptions about improvisation are that it is not supposed to be rehearsed, be well produced, or have a point. Also due to the newness of it, improvisation based work is in a vicious cycle. The work is underfunded, therefore the work cannot be well rehearsed and produced. The work is not rehearsed, so the quality is not consistent. The quality is not consistent so producers and curators do not want to show the work. The work is not shown, so artists making improvised work can't get funding. They can't get funding so they can't rehearse. The cycle continues.
Thomas Hauert, it seems, has been able to break this cycle and to get beyond two of the three main assumptions about improvisation. His piece Accords is well rehearsed and has a high level of production value. The lighting was not left over from the previous performance. The costuming, consisting of black mesh body suits over primary colored pants and shirts, was not thrown together right before the performance. The set, more than just a black box, was simple — black, one meter wide panels, each the height of the stage. The panels, which covered the back wall, were wide enough apart for the performers to slip between them. At times acting as either a visual backdrop or an obstacle course for the movement, the set was well integrated into the performance.
Where Hauert failed was topic. His piece had all the production value of a choreographed piece, but not the point of a choreographed piece. An improvised piece can have just as much of a point as a choreographed one. What was Hauert trying to reveal to the audience besides the tool of improvisation? Is it the means or the end? If improvisation is what he was trying to show the audience, he succeeded. We saw people improvising. But listening skills and group awareness in and of themselves do not make a good piece. If all it takes to make a good piece using improvisation is good listening skills then any sequence of memorized movement is good choreography. This, we know, is not the case. Even if improvisation itself were the topic of the piece, nothing was developed strongly enough to become the point of the piece. The dancers did not work flocking, group timing or any of the tools I recognized for such an extended period of time to take it to a new level.
Maybe Hauert intended to provide the audience with an enjoyable visual and auditory experience for 90 minutes. As an artist using similar tools, I want to see the tools create something besides themselves.
Tweet
Accords by Thomas Hauert/Zoo, which I saw last summer during Tanz im August, consisted of sections delineated by performers entering or exiting the stage through the spaces between the back panels. The movements within these sections were governed by either the simultaneous initiating and halting of movement, flocking, or awkward partnering. Flocking is when people move in a clump changing spacing/facing with no discernible leader. Awkward partnering is skilled bodies coming in contact in an improvised manner consciously eschewing the Contact Improvisation movement paradigm.
As someone who performs and teaches the tool of improvisation, I appreciated the clarity in this improvised performance. It is very satisfying to see an improvised piece by people who have been working together for more than just a handful of rehearsals. All to often, improvised performances have three rehearsals. During the first one, half of the group doesn't show and the half who are there just talk. For the second rehearsal 80% of the cast is there and some dancing actually happens. The third rehearsal is on stage in front of the audience, i.e., the performance. In Accords, the hours sweating together in the studio came through during the performance. I saw no moments of searching or moments of awkwardness when performers are in between inspirations.
Dance improvisation is a nascent art form. Because of this, there are many assumptions about improvisation and its uses. The three main assumptions about improvisation are that it is not supposed to be rehearsed, be well produced, or have a point. Also due to the newness of it, improvisation based work is in a vicious cycle. The work is underfunded, therefore the work cannot be well rehearsed and produced. The work is not rehearsed, so the quality is not consistent. The quality is not consistent so producers and curators do not want to show the work. The work is not shown, so artists making improvised work can't get funding. They can't get funding so they can't rehearse. The cycle continues.
Thomas Hauert, it seems, has been able to break this cycle and to get beyond two of the three main assumptions about improvisation. His piece Accords is well rehearsed and has a high level of production value. The lighting was not left over from the previous performance. The costuming, consisting of black mesh body suits over primary colored pants and shirts, was not thrown together right before the performance. The set, more than just a black box, was simple — black, one meter wide panels, each the height of the stage. The panels, which covered the back wall, were wide enough apart for the performers to slip between them. At times acting as either a visual backdrop or an obstacle course for the movement, the set was well integrated into the performance.
Where Hauert failed was topic. His piece had all the production value of a choreographed piece, but not the point of a choreographed piece. An improvised piece can have just as much of a point as a choreographed one. What was Hauert trying to reveal to the audience besides the tool of improvisation? Is it the means or the end? If improvisation is what he was trying to show the audience, he succeeded. We saw people improvising. But listening skills and group awareness in and of themselves do not make a good piece. If all it takes to make a good piece using improvisation is good listening skills then any sequence of memorized movement is good choreography. This, we know, is not the case. Even if improvisation itself were the topic of the piece, nothing was developed strongly enough to become the point of the piece. The dancers did not work flocking, group timing or any of the tools I recognized for such an extended period of time to take it to a new level.
Maybe Hauert intended to provide the audience with an enjoyable visual and auditory experience for 90 minutes. As an artist using similar tools, I want to see the tools create something besides themselves.
Tweet
Personal Statement for SODA
Below is my personal statement that I wrote in applying to the SODA program here in Berlin.
My interest in the S.O.D.A. program stems from a desire for a more profound connection and dialog with the dance/performance community. I am looking for thoughtful, candid feedback about my work that is more constructive than the often superficial comments traded after a performance. I am also seeking the tools -language, books, other minds - with which to understand and view my own work better. I am hungry for the same level of rigor and feedback in the studio and theater as I got when I was studying biochemistry at U.C., San Diego. Over exposure to acetone will destroy your liver no matter how you contextualize it.
What I am hoping to gain from the S.O.D.A. program is the same kind of discourse I had in the lab. Working individually or in groups, we evaluated and discussed each other's methods and findings. I hope to interact with people of similar interests(performance, dance, presence) from varying backgrounds(age, country, training) in a focused yet open environment. I hope hat they know and have experienced will open my eyes and increase what I know and will experience.
My artistic skills, capabilities and development have been driven by my proclivities. I am drawn to the tool of improvisation because it keeps my mind constantly engaged, constantly sensing and interacting with my environment. Having studied other approaches to improvisation, such as Action Theater and the Viewpoints, I am more drawn to the tool of contact improvisation. I find that it is the clearest model with which to examine performance variables in relation to improvisation. This is not to say that I am only interested in unfettered vague improvisational work. In fact, quite the opposite. My work, though improvised, can be quite restricted. In Any Fool Can Think of Words that Rhyme the three dancers are restricted to moving one joint at a time. In A2Zed/Nexus one point of contact is maintained and returned to as much as possible. Other limitations or choreographies for my work involve the lighting, body tone, or staying still and grunting.
I am also drawn to the tool of improvisation because there is an assumption that improvised work has no point to it or thought behind it. Sadly, most of the work out there professed to be improvised does not have a point other than it is improvised. The artists are so enamored of the process of real-time composing, that they forget that the tool of improvisation can be used to create something other than itself. Anvils can be used to create other things besides anvils. I, therefore, make a point of creating work that has a very definite concept outside of improvisation itself.
Just as I was drawn to study biochemistry to understand how the mechanics of life work, I am drawn to the theater to understand how it works. I am interested in the underlying structures of theater and their relationships. Currently, my specific area of interest is the function of a title. Is a title a sign to tell the audience what the performance is about? Is it a lens through which the audience should view the performance? Neither function I find satisfactory. If a title is to tell an audience what is happening, there is no room for the audience to participate, for them to create an event within themselves initiated by what is on stage. On the other hand, if the artist uses the title as a lens, the artist runs the risk of being too vague, leaving all the work of creating the performance up to the audience's imagination. If the artist is too vague then the audience could just as well stay home and imagine their own performance. Truth in Advertising, my most recent production, arose out of confusion about this function. The concert consists of seven pieces, each with two titles. One title is straight forward, the other title more obtuse. For example one piece is titled Man Grunting and Distillation - This piece is a distillation of the collective human experience of cruelty - cruelty that we experience from direct or inadvertent action of others and cruelty that we consciously or unconsciously inflict upon others. The intention of Truth in Advertising is to lead the audience to question the function of titles.
If art, as Brecht said, is a hammer with which to shape society, I would say that I aspire to be a hammer that shapes the hammer that shapes society. I say this because I make work in response to my environment. Observing the patterns and trends in the work around me inspires me. I aim to create work that leads my peers to question the tools and possibilities they are using in their work. I created Do You See What I See?, a series of performative still-lifes which bombard the audience with biographical information, as a response to all the intensely biographical work I was seeing in the San Francisco Bay Area. I created the sound score for Content with Content from descriptions in a film catalogue. By incessantly telling the audience what the piece is about, the sound score forces the viewers to question what any piece is about. I created Sentimental Pussyfooting: a study in plagiarism because I was tired of hearing "Oh, that's been done." The basic dance formula has been done again and again and no one complains about that. In Sentimental Pussyfooting I used pieces that have been done as points of departure, showing how much more there is left to investigate within ideas that "have been done". Yoko Ono's Cut piece, Paul Taylor's Duet, and John Cage's 4'33" are some of the pieces I used.
By surrounding myself with curious intelligent artists, I hope to gain new insights and avenues of inquiry into the inner workings of dance and performance. The S.O.D.A program will be the hammer that shapes the hammer that shapes the hammer that shapes society.
Tweet
My interest in the S.O.D.A. program stems from a desire for a more profound connection and dialog with the dance/performance community. I am looking for thoughtful, candid feedback about my work that is more constructive than the often superficial comments traded after a performance. I am also seeking the tools -language, books, other minds - with which to understand and view my own work better. I am hungry for the same level of rigor and feedback in the studio and theater as I got when I was studying biochemistry at U.C., San Diego. Over exposure to acetone will destroy your liver no matter how you contextualize it.
What I am hoping to gain from the S.O.D.A. program is the same kind of discourse I had in the lab. Working individually or in groups, we evaluated and discussed each other's methods and findings. I hope to interact with people of similar interests(performance, dance, presence) from varying backgrounds(age, country, training) in a focused yet open environment. I hope hat they know and have experienced will open my eyes and increase what I know and will experience.
My artistic skills, capabilities and development have been driven by my proclivities. I am drawn to the tool of improvisation because it keeps my mind constantly engaged, constantly sensing and interacting with my environment. Having studied other approaches to improvisation, such as Action Theater and the Viewpoints, I am more drawn to the tool of contact improvisation. I find that it is the clearest model with which to examine performance variables in relation to improvisation. This is not to say that I am only interested in unfettered vague improvisational work. In fact, quite the opposite. My work, though improvised, can be quite restricted. In Any Fool Can Think of Words that Rhyme the three dancers are restricted to moving one joint at a time. In A2Zed/Nexus one point of contact is maintained and returned to as much as possible. Other limitations or choreographies for my work involve the lighting, body tone, or staying still and grunting.
I am also drawn to the tool of improvisation because there is an assumption that improvised work has no point to it or thought behind it. Sadly, most of the work out there professed to be improvised does not have a point other than it is improvised. The artists are so enamored of the process of real-time composing, that they forget that the tool of improvisation can be used to create something other than itself. Anvils can be used to create other things besides anvils. I, therefore, make a point of creating work that has a very definite concept outside of improvisation itself.
Just as I was drawn to study biochemistry to understand how the mechanics of life work, I am drawn to the theater to understand how it works. I am interested in the underlying structures of theater and their relationships. Currently, my specific area of interest is the function of a title. Is a title a sign to tell the audience what the performance is about? Is it a lens through which the audience should view the performance? Neither function I find satisfactory. If a title is to tell an audience what is happening, there is no room for the audience to participate, for them to create an event within themselves initiated by what is on stage. On the other hand, if the artist uses the title as a lens, the artist runs the risk of being too vague, leaving all the work of creating the performance up to the audience's imagination. If the artist is too vague then the audience could just as well stay home and imagine their own performance. Truth in Advertising, my most recent production, arose out of confusion about this function. The concert consists of seven pieces, each with two titles. One title is straight forward, the other title more obtuse. For example one piece is titled Man Grunting and Distillation - This piece is a distillation of the collective human experience of cruelty - cruelty that we experience from direct or inadvertent action of others and cruelty that we consciously or unconsciously inflict upon others. The intention of Truth in Advertising is to lead the audience to question the function of titles.
If art, as Brecht said, is a hammer with which to shape society, I would say that I aspire to be a hammer that shapes the hammer that shapes society. I say this because I make work in response to my environment. Observing the patterns and trends in the work around me inspires me. I aim to create work that leads my peers to question the tools and possibilities they are using in their work. I created Do You See What I See?, a series of performative still-lifes which bombard the audience with biographical information, as a response to all the intensely biographical work I was seeing in the San Francisco Bay Area. I created the sound score for Content with Content from descriptions in a film catalogue. By incessantly telling the audience what the piece is about, the sound score forces the viewers to question what any piece is about. I created Sentimental Pussyfooting: a study in plagiarism because I was tired of hearing "Oh, that's been done." The basic dance formula has been done again and again and no one complains about that. In Sentimental Pussyfooting I used pieces that have been done as points of departure, showing how much more there is left to investigate within ideas that "have been done". Yoko Ono's Cut piece, Paul Taylor's Duet, and John Cage's 4'33" are some of the pieces I used.
By surrounding myself with curious intelligent artists, I hope to gain new insights and avenues of inquiry into the inner workings of dance and performance. The S.O.D.A program will be the hammer that shapes the hammer that shapes the hammer that shapes society.
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)