Togetherness: reset the song

Togetherness: reset the song

What exactly is togetherness?  To unpack this term and open up several ways to understand it, I offer several readings of the word using de/re-constructive etymology.  I am not talking about going back to the Greek, or the Latin, but taking just what we have when we look at the English word togetherness.  I mean, why do people always talk about the Greek roots of words?  Did words not exist before the Greeks?  Where did they get their words?  Why don’t we ask that and go even further back than the Greeks?

But I digress.

The first two letters are T and O.  This spells “to”.  According to Merriam Webster to is a preposition that indicates “the direction of something”, as in “You are going to Hell!”  The word “to” can also indicate addition, attachment, connection, belonging, possession, accompaniment, or response to something.  Last, but not least, to can indicate the infinitive form of a verb.

The third, fourth, and fifth letters of togetherness are G, E, and T.  Get, again according the Merriam Webster dictionary, means “to gain possession of” or “obtain by entreaty or permission”.  What did you get for Christmas?  As the years go by you will get old and get really wrinkly if you keep smoking.  Get can also mean “understand”. The definitions of to and get could be combined to mean “in the direction of gaining possession of or obtaining by entreaty understanding of or a state of being” or simply “to understand”, as in, “I get the joke.”

The letters 6 through 8 of togetherness are H, E, and R, respectively.  Her is the feminine third person singular pronoun indicating ownership.  As in, “I am her bitch.”  Pretty straight forward.

The last four letters, N, E, S, and S, when combined in that order spell ness.  Ness, according to the dictionary in the version of Microsoft Office I am currently using, is “a section of coastline that projects into the sea”.  Why a man named his company using two words 99.999% of men don’t want to hear and became the richest man in the world is still a mystery.

But I digress.

Combining, then, the four definitions of the parts of the word togetherness, we get the definition in the direction of gaining possession of or obtaining by entreaty understanding of or a state of being of a woman’s section of coastline that projects into the sea.

Who exactly this woman is I cannot say.  But from the definition I would postulate that she has beachfront property.  Whether this property is a white sand beach in Jamaica, or a rocky pebble beach somewhere near Big Sur on the California coast, or a raging section of waterfront down in the Tierra del Fuego, I cannot say.  But what I can say is that she must be wealthy.  She doesn’t have just beachfront property, but a section of coastline.  And from the times I have been to the Hamptons and hung out with old money in Martha’s Vineyard, I have seen some nice spreads, but no one talks about having a section of coastline.  That is some serious dough.

But I digress.

The meaning of in the direction of gaining has some interesting connotations.  Does it indicate that in the state of togetherness one is merely in the direction of gaining possession of or obtaining by entreaty understanding of or a state of being of her section of coastline that projects into the sea, and will never actually reach the ness?  Does this mean, then, that actual togetherness is impossible?  That it is a continual striving for an unobtainable goal, that no matter how much I try, I will never reach it?

Does this gaining refer to understanding or conceptually receiving something from the coastline, as in I finally made it to her coastline, her damp, writhing, fecund coastline and was so moved by it that it projected into my blood, my heart, my soul, that I groked it?  That in essence, I became the sea that her coastline thrust into?

Or are we talking about mere real estate?  That by entreaty, by fair means or (if those didn’t work) by foul, by marriage or by war, I took possession of her section of coastline that stands valiantly against the dark angry seas, a bulwark upon which the innocent Andromeda was lashed to by her father King Cepheus, King of Aethiopia, in order to save his people from the Olympian wroth of Poseidon.  Clearly we have a case of female collateral damage – two men using women as pawns in their struggle for domination.

But I digress.

Continuing, though, in this vein of gender, I wish to draw your attention to the third and fourth words within togetherness, her and ness.  Combining them we get herness.  –ness is a suffix and, as we all know, means the state, condition, or quality of.  Therefore herness is the state, condition, or quality of being her.  Her is not only the feminine third person singular pronoun indicating ownership, but also the feminine third person singular pronoun used to indicate the reception of action, whether directly, as in “Gonna smack her with a lead pipe/ Gonna smack her with a 2×4” (The Dead Milkmen) or indirectly, as in I gave her a diamond ring and a fur coat as way to ask for forgiveness for my terrible wretched behavior in the previous example.

The appropriateness of the examples aside, to get herness…hmm… in the direction of gaining possession of herness.

Does to get herness mean in the direction of gaining possession of femininity?  What level of herness are we talking about, the superficial layers of vestments? Whenever I put on my wife’s clothes I feel that I am merely in the direction of herness.  I am about 500 miles off from being anywhere close to being mistaken for a her.  Or are we talking about the whole enchilada, the whole kit and caboodle?  Chop chop snip snip, oh what a relief it is!  Did you know that Thailand and Iran are the #1 and #2 countries for most sexual reassignment surgeries in the world?

But I digress.

We could be talking about an individual who is already female biologically, but who nevertheless feels inadequate in the role of woman due to societal and cultural pressures.  Through a variety of methods whether sartorially and/or surgically, she tries to develop a heightened level of femininity?  Or are we talking about an individual who goes in the direction of gaining possession of femininity by becoming the ultimate nurturer and caregiver.  Is Angelina Jolie trying to gain femininity by adopting so many kids?  Was Oprah, whilst she had her talk show, trying to gain femininity by providing all of her audience members with free food, books, sweaters, and VW Beetles?

Thusly, in a partial conclusionary summation, we have two readings of the word togetherness – to get her ness and to get herness – each with multiple connotations.  I haven’t even gotten to the vowel replacement processes.  Using a simple a for e process we get the terms to get harness and to gather ness.  While the former evokes thoughts of Japanese rope binding, rock climbing, and animal husbandry, the latter brings to mind territorial wars and relates to to get her ness.  But I will not go into those readings now.

I must egress.

 

 

Heart and Soul

Paraphrasing Schuller and Duke-

‘”Improvisation is the heart and soul of [contact improvisation].” However, [contact improvisation] is not the heart and soul of improvisation, and they are definitely not one and the same.’ – John Henry Duke, Teaching Musical Improvisation: A Study of 18th and 20th Century Methods, pg. 16

The Great Greenbergian Shibboleth

“…consciously or not, interest is posed against the great Greenbergian shibboleth quality.  Whereas quality is judged by reference to the standards not only of the old masters but of the great moderns, interest is provoked through the testing of aesthetic categories and the transgressing of set forms.  In short, quality is a criterion of normative criticism, an encomium bestowed upon aesthetic refinement; interest is an avant-gardist term, often measured in terms of epistomological disruption.  It too can become normative, but it can also license critical inquiry and aesthetic play.”

Hal FosterReturn of the Real, pg. 46.

Channeled Consciously

“The meaning for me is the truth involved in this: one artist creating spontaneously something which is governed by the atmosphere, the audience, the place (both the room  and the geographical location), the instrument; all these being channeled consciously through the artist so that everyone’s efforts are rewarded, although the success or failure belongs completely to the artist himself.  The artist is responsible for every second.

In a group this is not true, nor should it be true.  One is firstly responsible to the other players and so the cycle is not quite complete, not quite pure.  Nobody knows exactly whose fault or responsibility, failure, or success it is because of the nature of a group and the complexities involved.  One does not have the communion with the audience because one is having communion with the rest of the group.” – Keith Jarrett, from the liner notes for Solo-Concerts Bremen Lausanne

Today I bought Keith Jarrett’s Solo-Concerts Bremen Lausanne CD.  I don’t know much about his music, haven’t heard much of it.  I listened to a story a few days ago on, I think, NPR about the album of his solo concert in Cologne and then walked by the Dussmann shop on Friedrichstrasse and saw several of his albums for sale.  Couldn’t find the Köln one, so I bought this one.  Listening to it right now, the part from Lausanne.  Around 23:00 some great music happens and continues to about 29:00.  A wonderful vein that he explores.

I really like some things he says in the above quote –

  • something which is governed by the atmosphere, the audience, the place (both the room  and the geographical location), the instrument
  • channeled consciously through the artist
  • Nobody knows exactly whose fault or responsibility, failure, or success it is

What I like the most is the word consciously.  Too often, I think, people associate spontaneous and improvised with unconscious.  I have no interest in watching someone who is unconscious.

Something I don’t agree with or don’t understand is the success or failure belongs completely to the artist himself.  The artist is responsible for every second.  I do not believe that the success or failure of a piece lies completely with the artist.  The artist can’t know what the audience likes and doesn’t; knows and doesn’t know and, I would say, can’t be held responsible for the success or failure of a piece.  Well, in his or her eyes/ears/mind, yes, but not in the audiences.

But the artist is responsible for every second because s/he is the one active agent in the artist-audience relationship.  Maybe active is the wrong word.  Maybe expressive in that the artist is putting something out and the audience is absorbing it.  But if we are to take his earlier statement that the atmosphere and the audience govern what the artist is creating then the audience is partly responsible.  Though at the moment of execution, the artist is the one deciding what happens.

What cycle is Jarrett talking about in the second paragraph?  Is he referring to the cycle of atmosphere, audience, etc. affecting the artist who is then in turn affecting the atmosphere, audience, etc which then in turn affect the artist which then in turn…?  So then does the group or ensemble communion affect connection to the audience?  I would agree, and maybe this is why ensemble improvisation can seem insular or self indulgent because the artists are paying more attention to each other than to the audience.  Hmm…, but I am speaking from a dance artist’s perspective and not a music artist’s perspective.

Whatever he means, I’m going to listen to more of his music.

ps: pardon the bad syntax.

The Penumbra of Spatial Apprehension

The Penumbra of Spatial Apprehension

The Penumbra of Spatial Apprehension, the downstage semi-circle shown here in red, is the area of the performance space that the performers, unless required to do so by a predetermined spatial choreography, tend to avoid.

When performers enter this penumbra, they tend to face upstage if vertical; or keep their pelvises close to the ground if facing downstage; or move through the penumbra with a trajectory parallel with the front of the stage.

Experience and the likelihood of entering the penumbra do not have a direct relationship.