The good thing about reinventing the wheel is that you might invent a better one.
a similar thought here
8.10.2012
7.30.2012
6.18.2012
There is no theory.
There is no theory.
There is only practice.
What you do is your practice.
Whether you are sitting at a table or lying on the floor or doing push-ups or aligning your heels with your sitz bones or quoting dead lovers of knowledge, you are engaged in a practice. If you are repeating it, you are rehearsing it. If you are rehearsing it, it is your practice. If you are sitting around a table discussing the possibilities of choreography, you are practicing sitting around a table discussing possibilities. Why are you not stretching or sharing weight while discussing the possibilities of choreography?
It has been scientifically proven that those who sit more live shorter lives.
Do you want your practice to lead to a shorter life span?
one article
another article
a third article
This leads me to another point. Philosophy. Philo coming from the Latin for love and sophy from sophia mean knowledge or wisdom. Therefore, someone who loves knowledge is a philosopher. Anyone who is involved in a practice is therefore a philosopher. The more rigorous the practice the more rigorous the philosophy. Therefore anyone who has an interest, whether it’s comic books, ballet, baseball, anatomy, is a philosopher. He or she loves knowledge of a sort. It might not be knowledge that someone else finds particularly useful or valid, but it is still knowledge. Whether Green Lantern could survive an attack by the Silver Surfer is just as philosophical a discussion as an aesthetic and textual examination of King Lear.
A chef is a philosopher.
A soccer coach is a philosopher.
A hair dresser is a philosopher.
A rancher is a philosopher.
An eye doctor is a philosopher.
A second grade teacher is a philosopher.
A Shiatsu practitioner is a philosopher.
A forest ranger is a philosopher.
A stat quoting baseball fan is a philosopher.
A contact improviser is a philosopher.
There is only practice.
What you do is your practice.
Whether you are sitting at a table or lying on the floor or doing push-ups or aligning your heels with your sitz bones or quoting dead lovers of knowledge, you are engaged in a practice. If you are repeating it, you are rehearsing it. If you are rehearsing it, it is your practice. If you are sitting around a table discussing the possibilities of choreography, you are practicing sitting around a table discussing possibilities. Why are you not stretching or sharing weight while discussing the possibilities of choreography?
It has been scientifically proven that those who sit more live shorter lives.
Do you want your practice to lead to a shorter life span?
one article
another article
a third article
This leads me to another point. Philosophy. Philo coming from the Latin for love and sophy from sophia mean knowledge or wisdom. Therefore, someone who loves knowledge is a philosopher. Anyone who is involved in a practice is therefore a philosopher. The more rigorous the practice the more rigorous the philosophy. Therefore anyone who has an interest, whether it’s comic books, ballet, baseball, anatomy, is a philosopher. He or she loves knowledge of a sort. It might not be knowledge that someone else finds particularly useful or valid, but it is still knowledge. Whether Green Lantern could survive an attack by the Silver Surfer is just as philosophical a discussion as an aesthetic and textual examination of King Lear.
A chef is a philosopher.
A soccer coach is a philosopher.
A hair dresser is a philosopher.
A rancher is a philosopher.
An eye doctor is a philosopher.
A second grade teacher is a philosopher.
A Shiatsu practitioner is a philosopher.
A forest ranger is a philosopher.
A stat quoting baseball fan is a philosopher.
A contact improviser is a philosopher.
6.06.2012
5.29.2012
Mastercard
Klein Tools 55-1/2 in. Grizzly Bar: $110.72
Bostitch 36" Steel Wrecking Bar: $19.08
Craftsman 16" Pry Bar: pries less
5.17.2012
5.16.2012
I.E.P.
Something I wrote on the subway today about improvised performance, especially in relation to my project as part of my third semester studies at SODA -
Improvised Ensemble Performance intentionally has such a limited palette in relation to props, music, set etc. as each of those elements and the unnamed ones are all ways that we can distract ourselves from our existence. Think of cell phones, portable music and video sources on planes, trains and automobiles. We use those forms to pull us away from ourselves, intentionally or not. But consciously using the limited (yet infinite!) palette of shape, space and time, we are drawing our own attention to the barest form of our existence. We will not distract you, the audience, from your experience with sound, set, drama, overt story, magic, the space of appearance etc. We invite you, maybe challenge you, to experience what is happening before you.
Improvised Ensemble Performance intentionally has such a limited palette in relation to props, music, set etc. as each of those elements and the unnamed ones are all ways that we can distract ourselves from our existence. Think of cell phones, portable music and video sources on planes, trains and automobiles. We use those forms to pull us away from ourselves, intentionally or not. But consciously using the limited (yet infinite!) palette of shape, space and time, we are drawing our own attention to the barest form of our existence. We will not distract you, the audience, from your experience with sound, set, drama, overt story, magic, the space of appearance etc. We invite you, maybe challenge you, to experience what is happening before you.
5.06.2012
4.18.2012
organistic or artistic
Is a performance an artistic event or an organization event? Both, but...and there is always a but...after the initial creation of the artistic event all that is left is the organizational event. Following this line of thought, could we then say that famous touring artists are not necessarily successful artists, but products of successful organizers?
The artistic feats of Cafe Müller, Glacial Decoy or Content with Content (to put myself in lofty company) happened but once, the initial birthing of them. But every other iteration of them is an organizational feat, not an artistic feat.
After taking a workshop here in Berlin about funding bodies and grant, and hearing about another workshop about international touring and funding, I began to wonder about organizing and creating. Creating something is definitely more fun than organizing something that is already. And as we all have a finite amount of time on this earth we can only do so much. Is it an either or situation? Do I have to pick one or the other? Or can I do both? It as of now has to be me doing both as no one is organizing for me. Haven't sparked the interest of an agent or a funder to do that part for me. And I do not have the natural tendency to organize.
The creating of a piece has to come first, no? Not necessarily. One can apply to make a piece and then the funds to make it. But then should one wait to make a piece until the funds are there? I say no.
Often after I make a piece and perform it a few times, I lose interest in revisiting that idea or experience again. That road has been traveled and I do not want to travel down that path again. This lack of interest in repetition prevents me from creating situations(applying to festivals, etc.) to show my work multiple times. I would rather spend the time, money, energy investigating something new, making something new. At least when I make it I know that I will have some measure of success. By making something I do not necessarily mean a whole production with lights camera action and audience. But thinking and encorporealizing it for myself. Exploring those neural pathways.
Maybe then, moving to Marfa and building a studio will be a viable option for me.
Make, make, make. Let the organizers sort them out!
(or maybe this is all just rationalization for someone who can't organize!)
The artistic feats of Cafe Müller, Glacial Decoy or Content with Content (to put myself in lofty company) happened but once, the initial birthing of them. But every other iteration of them is an organizational feat, not an artistic feat.
After taking a workshop here in Berlin about funding bodies and grant, and hearing about another workshop about international touring and funding, I began to wonder about organizing and creating. Creating something is definitely more fun than organizing something that is already. And as we all have a finite amount of time on this earth we can only do so much. Is it an either or situation? Do I have to pick one or the other? Or can I do both? It as of now has to be me doing both as no one is organizing for me. Haven't sparked the interest of an agent or a funder to do that part for me. And I do not have the natural tendency to organize.
The creating of a piece has to come first, no? Not necessarily. One can apply to make a piece and then the funds to make it. But then should one wait to make a piece until the funds are there? I say no.
Often after I make a piece and perform it a few times, I lose interest in revisiting that idea or experience again. That road has been traveled and I do not want to travel down that path again. This lack of interest in repetition prevents me from creating situations(applying to festivals, etc.) to show my work multiple times. I would rather spend the time, money, energy investigating something new, making something new. At least when I make it I know that I will have some measure of success. By making something I do not necessarily mean a whole production with lights camera action and audience. But thinking and encorporealizing it for myself. Exploring those neural pathways.
Maybe then, moving to Marfa and building a studio will be a viable option for me.
Make, make, make. Let the organizers sort them out!
(or maybe this is all just rationalization for someone who can't organize!)
3.25.2012
Ahead of his time
We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using Nature's inexhaustible sources of energy -- sun, wind and tide. ... I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that. -Thomas Edison, inventor (1847-1931)
Spirals
Below is the piece I made during the Erasmus intensive on Composition at my university this past fall, October 2011.
3.21.2012
3.20.2012
Blame
Corporations, corporations, corporation...the root of all evil. Faceless disembodied entities that are ruining the world, the environment and now the political system in the United States by their ability to funnel unlimited amounts of cash into the coffers of willing politicians. The Supreme Court of the United States blocked a ban limiting how much corporations could spend on political campaigns.
It is all the fault of corporations. These mindless soulless beings that wreck havoc in the world, utterly uncontrollable.
But what a minute...don't these corporations have presidents and CEOs and board members?!?
Aren't those the people who are actually making the decisions, the bad decisions that we all hate?
And isn't it possible to find out who these people are?
So why don't we go after these people more? Instead of saying that corporations are ruining the political system, why not actually name the people who are making the decisions? Why not put a face to those actions?
Yes, that would be harder to do. It is much easier to say that the corporations are at fault as opposed to naming every Tom, Dick and Harriet who sits on the board of those harbingers of doom. It is much easier to blame(and here I will automatically lose this argument, some say, by invoking Hitler) Hitler than all the generals, colonels, captains, corporals who also decided to kill people.
Corporations...Hitler...it is much easier to demonize a single entity than all the actual individuals involved.
Is it any more effective?
It is all the fault of corporations. These mindless soulless beings that wreck havoc in the world, utterly uncontrollable.
But what a minute...don't these corporations have presidents and CEOs and board members?!?
Aren't those the people who are actually making the decisions, the bad decisions that we all hate?
And isn't it possible to find out who these people are?
So why don't we go after these people more? Instead of saying that corporations are ruining the political system, why not actually name the people who are making the decisions? Why not put a face to those actions?
Yes, that would be harder to do. It is much easier to say that the corporations are at fault as opposed to naming every Tom, Dick and Harriet who sits on the board of those harbingers of doom. It is much easier to blame(and here I will automatically lose this argument, some say, by invoking Hitler) Hitler than all the generals, colonels, captains, corporals who also decided to kill people.
Corporations...Hitler...it is much easier to demonize a single entity than all the actual individuals involved.
Is it any more effective?
3.19.2012
3.13.2012
Looking at Rembrandt
The quotes below are from an article on brain scans on people who are looking at Rembrandt paintings.
Some snippets below -
"Brain scans revealed how much the enjoyment of art is influenced by the information given to the viewer."
"The study showed the strength of suggestibility in such artistic responses."
"The pretension-puncturing experiment suggests that the appreciation of art is strongly linked to the accompanying information - rather than an objective judgement."
"This warm glow of aesthetic pleasure was absent when the viewers looked at an image they had been told was fake. Instead the brain activity was associated with strategy and planning, as though the subject was trying to work out why this was not an authentic painting."
This shows how context can be made to increase or decrease viewers' enjoyment of a static object. Is this a good thing?
What does this mean for live arts? Could audiences be told that the piece they are watching is a fake Bausch, or a fake Cunningham? Or do a piece as faithfully as possible by someone else and call it your own?
How much does it cost to rent an FMRI?
Some snippets below -
"Brain scans revealed how much the enjoyment of art is influenced by the information given to the viewer."
"The study showed the strength of suggestibility in such artistic responses."
"The pretension-puncturing experiment suggests that the appreciation of art is strongly linked to the accompanying information - rather than an objective judgement."
"This warm glow of aesthetic pleasure was absent when the viewers looked at an image they had been told was fake. Instead the brain activity was associated with strategy and planning, as though the subject was trying to work out why this was not an authentic painting."
This shows how context can be made to increase or decrease viewers' enjoyment of a static object. Is this a good thing?
What does this mean for live arts? Could audiences be told that the piece they are watching is a fake Bausch, or a fake Cunningham? Or do a piece as faithfully as possible by someone else and call it your own?
How much does it cost to rent an FMRI?
3.11.2012
3.07.2012
More Definitions
Theater is that which the form and the content are different entities.
In dance the form and the content are the same entity.
In dance the form and the content are the same entity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)