Fear the Obvious

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.

Emphases in Performance

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.

(everything is dance)

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!

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.

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?

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?

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…

Formulaic vs. Poetic

The difference between the poetic and the formulaic is that you haven’t figured out the formula for the poetic yet.

(function(d){ var js, id = ‘facebook-jssdk’; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(‘script’); js.id = id; js.async = true; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#appId=262956197058132&xfbml=1”; d.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0].appendChild(js); }(document));

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.

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?