Choreographic Lab

Working in practice intensive with Matthew Smith and Paea Leach. Go here for tumblelog.

Sunday 1 July, 6pm

£ Free. Isham Studios, University of Northampton, St George’s Avenue, Northampton
Four Acts of Violence Leading Up To Now
“… we must enter into the thickness of a duration where our memories are forged.”
Marie Cariou.

Inhabiting both web and performed worlds, Four Acts of Violence Leading Up to Now offers partial, personal and glancing perspectives on the microtraumatic impacts of time. It is at once a meditation and peering or cutting into the past, whilst acknowledging the durational slipperiness of the present.

Devised by Simon Ellis, David Corbet and Paea Leach

“Like pain, violence haunted the work as an unrepresentable presence … Four Acts was redolent with the possibility that violence had precipitated its course …”
Real Time (http://www.realtimearts.net/article/issue76/8271)

www.fouractsofviolence.net

Open Showing
As part of an Arts Council England professional development and movement research grant, Simon Ellis invited Matthew Smith and Paea Leach to visit Northampton to commence the development of a new performance/dance project. The artists would like to show, share and talk to the initial outcomes of their work. Visit http://skellis.net/research07/?cat=4 for tumblelog of the project (from June 23 onwards).

For further information concerning Four Acts & the Open Showing, visit http://skellis.net/research07/?p=6 or email Simon Ellis at simonkellis@gmail.com

At some point in time I seem to remember some discussion of nothingness. but that’s all I remember. what was the context for this?

Anyway - came across some things that might interest whoever it was discussing it!

From Thomas McEvilley (1991). Art & Discontent: Theory at the Millennium. New York: McPherson & Company Publishers.

p.86: “Works in both the Minimalist and Sublime directions, for example, exhibit an attempt to eliminate content or at least to reduce the number of contentual levels present in the work. This attempt in itself declares or acts out a new level of content; no work ever attains the zero-degree of content, since the concept of a zero-degree of content is itself a content.”

From Andre Lepecki (2006). Exhausting Dance: Performance and the politics of movement. London: Routledge. … but he’s quoting Deleuze:

p.130: “the duration of an organism’s present, or of its various presents, will vary according to the natural contractile range of its contemplative souls. In other words, fatigue is a real component of contemplation. It is correctly said that those do nothing tire themselves most” (Delueze, 1994: 77).

Thanks Gilles.

Jane and I did a wee bit of dancing on Friday (6th Oct). In which we considered muddying the roles between the observer and the doer. The activity was short - 2mins dancing, each, then repeated 5 times. There was no pause inbetween the dances, and transition was marked by a brief alarm. A particular kind of momentum developed — rhythmic — in which strands of previous 2 minute dances particpated in latter ones, and were ‘remembered’ by the other. It seemed to allow (or facilitate?) a greater sense of sharing the space. Was this because of the brevity of each dance? What would it be to have 15min dances x 6 (say)? There is something about the inability to ’settle’ in the observing (in these 2 min versions) which suggests that the dancing thread isn’t deactivated, isn’t given time to disengage. Simiarly, the vestiges of the previous 2 min dance are clear enough to be fluttering and innverating the dancing in the next dance …

But the above is more about my experience … as distinct from my experience of Jane - or participating (as an observer) in her doing. Our ‘plan’ - to muddy the roles - seemed to work! But I wondered about this. Often, in my observing (a much more physically engaged, active pursuit of the watching) meant I began to think simply of my role — and it seemed to lessen the act of ‘giving’ in the observation. But perhaps I am simply admitting to rampant egocentricity? And yet the ‘whole’ became increasingly clear … a collection of roles, and actions … being pushed, and pushing. Being asked to contribute, and frame, in calling my will and passivity on the moving/dancing duo.

And amongst it all, some little gems of dancing … gradually developing an environment in which the failures are supported, and novelty is engaged.

There is a chill in the air today. Autumn. Sun. Will it be cold in the studio? Have they fixed the heating? These are just time passers for my underlying anxiety. Since we last danced together more than a week ago I have thought very little about it. Well, not consciously but I know there is something, somethings, stirring. Not sure what it is yet. Let it take its time. Let it gestate. I am not decided today. Not clear what I want to do in the studio with Simon this morning. His ‘a bit of dancing’ rattles around in my head and I notice that since I last had it rattling in my head that there now seems to be more space for the rattle. That is good. I like that.
‘What do you want to do?’ ‘Dunno, what do you want to do?’ ‘Um, I don’t feel like I have something I want to do’…
Somewhere I am thinking, trying to feel my way in…do I want to go back to where we were a week ago? What is left from that experience? Where to go from here? Where is here? Where was that?
Simon says ‘let’s do 2 minutes dancing and swap with no gaps in between and no talking. Let’s do it 5 times.
And so we do just that.
Dance, play, move, I feel him seeing me. Notice his sitting, my action - jump, jiggle, flit, flop - the space between us in this bit of a dance.
Time.
His go.
Jump. The athlete. Arms and fingers splayed, chest open. Catching himself off guard, almost everything. Feet or hands almost unable to catch up. Centre of gravity? Where is it?
Time.
My go.
I splay my hands, jump, open the chest, arms behind back. Surprise myself by finding him.
Time.
His go.
Time.
My go.
I’m tired. No, I can’t do that. What is my response? Am I following? Where am I? Too many questions. Want to wait until the impulse to move arrives. Stand still. Wait for the impetus. Looking for the impetus. What is operating here? Kinaesthetic. Sensation. Thinking. What is it to be embodied? The atmosphere of the thing. What is it? Just a bit of a dance, Jane.
His go.
He talks to me and moves to move. At the wall still talking. I notice my smile. His muttering. My pleasure. His movement now less energetic, more fluid, time seems to have appeared to him. Time and space seem to be of no concern to him. I am smiling.
Time.
My go.
Time.
His go.
These short sharp burst of moving and watching, seeing and being seen. Shifts in space and place appear as if previously unseen or understated and yet I ‘know’ that we always dance ’somewhere’.
Seek out the potential of blurring these boundaries. Can the seen become more seer, can the seer become more seen. Can my place become his or his space appear in my time.
Can we be both mover and witness in a continuum of time. We agreed to find a way to take out the ‘gaps’ that are created by the resetting of the timer and of ‘changing places’. The changing places becoming a part of the moving exchange. The meditative quality of the witness/observer becoming a part of the moving exchange.
Later in the day: So it was important not to know where to begin. In the tension of our previous beginnings, in the tension of finding ourselves, we have found that what we are looking for is to try and find ourselves and each other. Only before we forgot that we both can see and are seen. And seeing is so very much more than looking.
Jane

Activities –
1. Authentic movement, 10 min improv
2. Two minutes reflection
3. Switch for 10 min improv
4. Second 2 minute reflection.
5. 15 min improv. First 5 silent, second 5 being fed single words by observer (no constraints on type of word), third 5 silent.
6. 2 minute reflection
7. Switch 15 min improv (ie other mover)
8. Final 2 minute reflection.

Two minute reflection on Jane doing (the first 10 min improv):
Small hands, large breath
Folded in two. Torsoless woman.
Sobbing.
Empathy.
Knocking on door.
Interruption.
Space/time in my observing. Noticing, missing, reading, guessing, exaggerating.

Personal reflection on my first 10 minute AM improv:
Calm. Checking in. stable. Gentle abandon. Noticing the known, surprised by the un. Gliding, oiled, frictionless body(s). Light.

15 minute Jane improv – words spoken to her:
air. Ground. Back. Shouldering arms. Soft feet. Unknown. Integrity. Belly. Hips. Sustain. Sustainence. Air. Lungs. Fingernails. (then repeated all).

Two minutes reflecting on Jane’s 15 min improv:
Patterns. Seen. Get to here, then this. Surprised. Perturbed. Do, then think. Rhythms constructed in the thinking. Silence. Thinking body. Tune in tune out. Still. Sure. Calm.

Two minutes reflecting on my 15 min improv:
Knees. Sticky. The privacy. The secret. A moment.

I have questions about authentic movement (it’s utterly new to me). Are we (Jane and I) simply talking about dancing ‘authentically’ (whatever that might be)? In other words – taking AM and placing it within a ‘dancey’ context. Are there aesthetic choices being made (at least, are there supposed to be aesthetic choices being made)? Is there room ‘allowed’ for a disembodied eye on the improv?

Simon

Starting a new relationship is always wonderful and difficult all at the same time, or so it seems to me. At any one moment you/I find something that is new and unexpected whilst at the same point in time realising what it is about your own (moving) self that has brought you to this very point in time and space. THIS point rather than an OTHER point in TIME and SPACE. That is how it was today. Dancing with Simon (Ellis) for the first time.
Well, not really, I have danced with him before but today we began something of a new exploration. There is a small agreement to ‘go into the studio and see what happens’. We both have agendas and enquiries but we have agreed no more than this - to do a bit of dancing together. At least that is my sense of it.
It is tentative and exploratory as we begin to search out the other, to try and find ourselves in the other. I set the first task. I want us to use the framework of Authentic Movement, the mover and witness, the moving and reflecting, to see what that is for us. We agree - move for 10 minutes, contemplation alone and/or writing for 2 minutes, reflect back to the mover for 10 minutes with the mover speaking first something of their experience of moving.
What am I interested in here? The relationship between improvising in movement and Authentic Movement as improvisation, or something like that. Sometimes when I have spent a weekend doing Authentic Movement I long to get up and move, to dance, to improvise freely. I have spent a lot of time working on how to reflect on movement, how to give feedback to the mover that might, in some way, be helpful or resonant for that mover. I work on language, on owning my projections (as best I can), on speaking from the movement. We do the task. We speak about the movement.
What I notice in myself as mover is how drawn I am, in the presence of this mover, to dance more. I am drawn to the Other rather than waiting for the movement to appear from within and to grapple with that moving as Other. I know this place too - the longing to dance with you, all of you, the lure of the Other. But here, now, I can at least feel the edges of these two parts of me, these two ideas. This is a rough attempt to describe them - 1)improvising with an intention toward moving and 2) the search for the inner impetus or impulse that will give rise to movement for the sake of the self.
What I notice is a sense that I have worked this way for a long time and I feel I know this pathway, know this method. This sense leaves me wondering what it is I am looking for in this new relationship.
That is all for now, later I hope to be able to speak more.
Jane

It seems like I am at a very different stage in terms of the development of a project (as part of the Choregraphic Lab)… still concocting possibilities, and it’s very much early days.

I met with Kristin Green (architect) in Melbourne shortly before I left there and we discussed the beginnings of “Crevice”, and the possibility of her being involved (in some capacity). We talked about the project’s origins, and in particular how the development of the architectural component(s) will so clearly impact on the entire form-content. This is not exactly a newsflash, but it does mean the timeline for how the various aspects of the project needs to be developed early on in the process, and not in an ad hoc way. In this respect the various strands of the project (as they currently exist) – word, animation, video, architecture (both actual and animated), audio, body – need to be developed either in parallel or as close as is possible to parallel. This does present a problem in terms of decision making very early in the making/development. For example, the viewing of the physical materials through the floor requires a number of decisions to be made about that floor - height, space between boards, dimensions - that strongly impact on the viewing experience. But until a usable mock up of the floor is built how will we know what dimensions facilitate (or impede) the viewing experience? Can these early decisions be anything other than arbitrary? In a sense, Shannon Bott and I do need to have this constructed BEFORE we begin physical rehearsals/development, but how to know this? And how to prevent such an early decision then impacting on the rest of the development (which MIGHT be valuable, but also might be highly restrictive).

Not very exciting this. But it is where I am at.

Am going to do some measuring today. At least get a feel for the width/breadth of the environment. And how vision (of audience members) might be impaired by having to look around others, and also in relation to proximity to the screens. This is something Kristin raised very early on (and something I hadn’t even considered) - if an audience member is close to the screen how will they will get a sense of the entirety …

But such a problem also offers the possibility that there are ‘microworlds’ occuring on the screens - private houses/constructions that are subsets of the larger environment. Private spaces.

Small walls.

It is now three weeks since I finished the residency in Perth (PICA) with David Corbet and Paea Leach. The three of us are now deeply into the final development and rehearsal of Four Acts of Violence Leading Up To Now which premieres in Melbourne in late September and then shifts across to Perth as part of the ArtRage festival there.

As part of “Four Acts” we have been looking into integrating a cluster of micro50s (intiated during the PICA R&D residency) projected at 720×240 - an initial example can be seen here - this will be one of perhaps 10 two second movies projected (with undecided space/time between) at the culmination of the project.

One of the premises of Four Acts (an interest resulting from my doctoral research) was in developing a live performance project that also existed (in part) online. Although the Four Acts site is very much UNDER CONSTRUCTION (going live in mid-September 06) the idea is that the witnessing of the project is available in both ‘realms’. Rather than the web site simply giving details of the performance (and playing second fiddle), I am looking at how the site can generate meaning potentials independently and in ‘dialogue’ with the performances. This has been influenced, in particular, by two film sites - memento and Requiem For A Dream - both of which are experiences unto themselves, regardless of whether or not you have seen the films.

In addition, I have been working on my basic animation skills (go here for an example). This has involved working in After Effects and taking the handwriting of performer Paea Leach, scanned, prepped in photoshop and then (rather painstakingly) animated. My thinking here is in developing a suitable technique (or several techniques) for animating the construction of “house” as part of Crevice.

At this stage I am interested in such a hand drawn look - to play with the sense of flimsiness and instability in the house - as if it was easily erasable. I plan only to be working in 2D at any one time, but the apparent 3D-ness of the environment will be manifest by having four walls (surrounding the audience) displaying time synced animations. A big task.

The other major “advance” in the early stages of “Crevice” has been to commence discussions with an architect here in Melbourne - Kristin Green. Because David Corbet (working on the audio for “Crevice”) and I have started to feel that the animated footage presented on the four screens could be a mixture of materials developed from real video footage (go here for a very primitive and hard to see example) AND video footage obtained from a virtual house (built, say, in autoCAD or even sketchUp), we thought that it would be entirely appropriate (and stimulating) to talk to an architect about her thoughts on the project - with an eye to being involved in the process (and they would also then be capable of designing the floor/underground structure as well). I have a sense that this combination of virtual and real animations (as it were) will inherently destabilise (or perhaps poeticise?) the viewing experience of the project …

But for now, Crevice is on hold - until Four Acts is up and running.

Example of animated writing developed as part of Four Acts of Violence Leading Up To Now.

Size: 1 Mg
Resolution: 720×576
Format: Quicktime DV

Best viewed by selecting “Download” below.