Could it be???
Is the elephant in the room, in fact, that this whole "dispersed, multiply identified post-modern subject," isn't the core, but merely a light support of my central argument & position?
More to come...
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Saturday, 12 April 2008
Monday, 7 April 2008
Something specific?
Harriet's encouraged me to post my ideas on my blog. In my current state of too many ideas in my head, and the nagging little perfectionist voice, I resisted at first, but see that it could be useful!
This is supremely rough, but getting clearer. I welcome any questions. I would also just love to hear what thoughts spring to mind when reading through this. Free association welcome! About your own practice, what you have seen in mine, other artists, other critical thinkers....
I am also still working out the right balance and hierarchy of these ideas to make sure I emphasize the pieces that are more relevant to my work at this stage and don't dwell on exciting, but less relevant ones.
I need some perspective....opinions, thoughts, that might help unclog the mass of interesting thoughts in my head!
Finally:
**What is the obvious question I haven't asked that is in plain sight after reading this entry?
What is the question?
1) multiply identified, dispersed subject - The Techno/subject in performance
- good position as a multi-media artist
- I don't feel that this notion has really hit the public consciousness even though the idea's been around for over a decade at least
2) can technology be used as a bridge between the different levels of embodiment?
2a) is technology a barrier or a bridge to live performance?
- this is where my initial proposal left off. It seems unfinished, but possibly still relevant and interesting if paired w/ #1?
3) As a performer, how do you extend your sense of embodiment to your audience?
3a) "stretching your skin" across different media; collapsing time/space/identity/reality boundaries?
3b) bringing them into the process when it's still a process instead of a final product?
- I'm going to be asking this over and over as I develop my practice regardless of whether it manifests itself this literally in the research proposal or not.
Pieces that might fit into the puzzle and flesh out the argument:
a) revisiting layers of embodiment that I explored in original proposal draft from January.
b) post-modern/techno theorists in 1990s recurring theme - boundaries between self/human body and animals/nature and technology are eroding. there's a resistance and fear of this, but also an opportunity to re-cast notions we hold of the Self or Individual
- Vivian Sobchack "technologies such as the computer have profoundly changed the temporal and spatial shape and meaning of our life-works and our own bodily and symbolic sense of ourselves."
c) virtual reality vs. reality
- Mark Poster article section "Reality problematized" - "'virtual reality' is a more dangerous term since it suggests that reality may be multiple or take many forms."
d) it's just a tool. learn it. use it well.
- Laurie Anderson, Pamela Z, Piplotti Rist, Janet Cardiff: artists who are comfortably working with high tech tools but don't overstate the importance of the technology/tools that they use to create their work.
- example: Laurie Anderson says her work has backed off from the big multimedia extravaganzas. However, her performances are still highly technology-reliant: microphone, synths, violins. Stripped down aesthetically, so that it becomes more "invisible" and doesn't overwhelm the content, but it's still very integral to the creation of her work.
e) free software movement/electronics hacking like Dorkbot
- de-mystifcation of technology through building your own tools, taking apart existing technology and seeing how it works. How you can change it to do something else
- I see a total link to the resurgence of the DIY/craft movement.
- open source de-emphasizes authorship and de-centralizes the creation and dissemination of the technology, creates a community of people who want to keep ideas free and open (like blogging about potentially 'proprietary' thoughts like I'm doing right now.)
f) Amelia Jones - why her as key critical thinker to my research
- explicitly links dispersed, multiple subject to performance and technology
- using technology explicitly to break with notions of fixed Self and extend beyond constructed boundary of the skin (ew! messy!!!)
- the contemporary subject is already technologized and therefore same rules don't apply because no longer simply "human"(ist?)
- from this point of view, the reason for an artist to place their own body/Self in their artwork shifts: - Jones "This mediated, multiply identified, particularized body/self proclaims the utter loss of the "subject" (in this case the fully intentional artist) as a stable referent (origin of the artwork's meaning)
- Body/Self - sense of Self is not lost, just redefined in connection to the layers that make you up and surround you, including the intangible, "virtual" ones
Bringing it back to my practice
- processing a live feed means I can interact with my own images moments later and an audience can witness the full creation of this (embodiment through relation of performer's physical body with the virtual body, physical form of the video technology, proximity of audience members's physical bodies, most likely projection of audience's bodies on the screens with performer's virtual body, journey together through creative process instead of audience simply witnessing a final product)
- even though there are multiple, simultaneous projections of my image, I am part of a larger
system. The video projections allow a more literal manifestation of this idea
- thinking about my practice as a performing art appeals to me because theater/performing arts have always created a space for me where I can explore modes of expression that might otherwise be suppressed in day to day life.
- primordial? expression. pre-verbal: Lisa Gerrard, Meredith Monk.
This is supremely rough, but getting clearer. I welcome any questions. I would also just love to hear what thoughts spring to mind when reading through this. Free association welcome! About your own practice, what you have seen in mine, other artists, other critical thinkers....
I am also still working out the right balance and hierarchy of these ideas to make sure I emphasize the pieces that are more relevant to my work at this stage and don't dwell on exciting, but less relevant ones.
I need some perspective....opinions, thoughts, that might help unclog the mass of interesting thoughts in my head!
Finally:
**What is the obvious question I haven't asked that is in plain sight after reading this entry?
What is the question?
1) multiply identified, dispersed subject - The Techno/subject in performance
- good position as a multi-media artist
- I don't feel that this notion has really hit the public consciousness even though the idea's been around for over a decade at least
2) can technology be used as a bridge between the different levels of embodiment?
2a) is technology a barrier or a bridge to live performance?
- this is where my initial proposal left off. It seems unfinished, but possibly still relevant and interesting if paired w/ #1?
3) As a performer, how do you extend your sense of embodiment to your audience?
3a) "stretching your skin" across different media; collapsing time/space/identity/reality boundaries?
3b) bringing them into the process when it's still a process instead of a final product?
- I'm going to be asking this over and over as I develop my practice regardless of whether it manifests itself this literally in the research proposal or not.
Pieces that might fit into the puzzle and flesh out the argument:
a) revisiting layers of embodiment that I explored in original proposal draft from January.
b) post-modern/techno theorists in 1990s recurring theme - boundaries between self/human body and animals/nature and technology are eroding. there's a resistance and fear of this, but also an opportunity to re-cast notions we hold of the Self or Individual
- Vivian Sobchack "technologies such as the computer have profoundly changed the temporal and spatial shape and meaning of our life-works and our own bodily and symbolic sense of ourselves."
c) virtual reality vs. reality
- Mark Poster article section "Reality problematized" - "'virtual reality' is a more dangerous term since it suggests that reality may be multiple or take many forms."
d) it's just a tool. learn it. use it well.
- Laurie Anderson, Pamela Z, Piplotti Rist, Janet Cardiff: artists who are comfortably working with high tech tools but don't overstate the importance of the technology/tools that they use to create their work.
- example: Laurie Anderson says her work has backed off from the big multimedia extravaganzas. However, her performances are still highly technology-reliant: microphone, synths, violins. Stripped down aesthetically, so that it becomes more "invisible" and doesn't overwhelm the content, but it's still very integral to the creation of her work.
e) free software movement/electronics hacking like Dorkbot
- de-mystifcation of technology through building your own tools, taking apart existing technology and seeing how it works. How you can change it to do something else
- I see a total link to the resurgence of the DIY/craft movement.
- open source de-emphasizes authorship and de-centralizes the creation and dissemination of the technology, creates a community of people who want to keep ideas free and open (like blogging about potentially 'proprietary' thoughts like I'm doing right now.)
f) Amelia Jones - why her as key critical thinker to my research
- explicitly links dispersed, multiple subject to performance and technology
- using technology explicitly to break with notions of fixed Self and extend beyond constructed boundary of the skin (ew! messy!!!)
- the contemporary subject is already technologized and therefore same rules don't apply because no longer simply "human"(ist?)
- from this point of view, the reason for an artist to place their own body/Self in their artwork shifts: - Jones "This mediated, multiply identified, particularized body/self proclaims the utter loss of the "subject" (in this case the fully intentional artist) as a stable referent (origin of the artwork's meaning)
- Body/Self - sense of Self is not lost, just redefined in connection to the layers that make you up and surround you, including the intangible, "virtual" ones
Bringing it back to my practice
- processing a live feed means I can interact with my own images moments later and an audience can witness the full creation of this (embodiment through relation of performer's physical body with the virtual body, physical form of the video technology, proximity of audience members's physical bodies, most likely projection of audience's bodies on the screens with performer's virtual body, journey together through creative process instead of audience simply witnessing a final product)
- even though there are multiple, simultaneous projections of my image, I am part of a larger
system. The video projections allow a more literal manifestation of this idea
- thinking about my practice as a performing art appeals to me because theater/performing arts have always created a space for me where I can explore modes of expression that might otherwise be suppressed in day to day life.
- primordial? expression. pre-verbal: Lisa Gerrard, Meredith Monk.
Monday, 10 March 2008
Initial thoughts on Nunning.
Learned a bunch from the Nunnery show. The overarching impression I've walked away from my piece with is that I've thrown open too many doors and have to figure out which ones are the ones I'm interested in moving forward with. I may or may not get around to organizing them into themes before I post this. Just want to get things down while they're still quite fresh.
So what is the piece about? Let's start with what seems to be there based on observations and audience feedback:
What seems to be ideal viewing moment for this piece?
If I did piece like this again, conditions I would insist upon:
But what exactly is the main point of interest or focal point of the piece?
Other things I felt or heard repeatedly:
So what is the piece about? Let's start with what seems to be there based on observations and audience feedback:
- pretty singing
- minimal, often unconfident live performance
- slippage between live and recorded image. What is actually happening live and what is pre-recorded? (I even saw one woman taking the headphones off in the middle of watching it, which was fantastic)
- immersion of viewer through soundtrack
- alienation of viewer through trapping them in a corner behind a camera and forcing them to watch complicated video piece on a small screen
- a layered piece that was read on different levels by different people
- a vague sense that there was "alot there" but no one at the actual performance who could put a finger on it
- from feedback pre-performance "extremely rich" area to explore. Yes, I'm finding it overwhelmingly rich!
- putting the audience in my shoes behind the camera
- confusing the role of the viewer to those around them who think that the person behind the camera is actually filming. As a result, preventing many possible viewers from approaching the camera and watching the piece.
- embodiment in space of both viewer and performer
- performer highlights interesting aspects of space through movement and vocalization
- video reinforces these
- performer ultimately becomes integrated into the different sensory layers of the space
- viewer becomes embodied simultaneously through immersion and alienation. When they walk away from the piece, they have a heightened awareness of the space.
- 3 phases to video that shifted mood, but also shifted weight of foreground/background between the video and the physical space
- mirroring 3 phases live
What seems to be ideal viewing moment for this piece?
- when the place has some people milling around, or walking from place to place
- when I appear live in the space as well, especially when singing. even if the singing isn't the same tune as the video piece.
If I did piece like this again, conditions I would insist upon:
- layered space: a place where there are people walking through, different points of entry and exit. I tried the piece in 5 different locations, both at WCA and at the Nunnery. The most interesting ones had people in different planes from the viewer walking through the frame. The 2 locations that were enclosed rooms were pretty boring.
- 2-3 days in the space before the performance to rehearse and plot out performance sound and movement. The performance side of things continued to be weak for the whole weekend. My performance skills are at a point where I still need to have a clear plan in place ahead of time. I can't wing it and hope for the best, even if I love improv. Sticking to a path and controlled movement on Sunday made me feel like I was starting to get there, and allowed me to find a good pitch to my performance over time. I was hoping that having all this time would do exactly that. However, in the future, I need to have this time BEFORE the actual performance!
- 2-3 full days of shooting with rough edits performed each evening or on the fly. Although I felt good about the work I did in the Nunnery. I ended up limiting my possibilities by only taking half a day there. Things that I thought would work together when reviewing the tape in the space ended up not working together at all. Editing is so easy with final cut these days!
But what exactly is the main point of interest or focal point of the piece?
- is it about the space?
- is it about the performer? in the foreground or the background?
- the viewer? alienated or immersed?
- the articulation of space through movement? sound? alienation? interruption? integration?
- my embodiment as a performer within my body? surroundings? in relation to the technology? the viewer?
Other things I felt or heard repeatedly:
- When I think back on this weekend, I feel like I'm playing a conceptual tennis match. Except no one's keeping score.
- live performance was chaos until Sunday. On Sunday, I had time to find something to do with myself that seemed to hold things together more. I created a walk for myself around the gallery walking backwards and forwards as if I were another person just looking at the art. However, once in a while I would stop and study something that wasn't the art, or start singing. If someone blocked my path, I reversed direction.It was interesting and seemed to make the piece hold together better.
- the whole piece "worked" on Sunday, but what do I mean by that?
- at what point do I give up and get someone who is a trained performer to do it for me? This question makes me really angry. I feel like there is some assumption that if you're not really good, you shouldn't put yourself in your work. How will I learn if I'm not in the work? And yet ultimately, when does my lack of performance skill get in the way of me communicating what I want to with the piece? I can't answer this right now. Still narrowing down what the piece is about?
- is it really important that people sit behind a camera? What would be other ways of doing this?
- soundtrack was fab.
- I realized that I was most interested in the sonic dimension of the space.
- I am also most interested in exploring the sonic dimension of video. I think. The one piece of this I can clarify right now is that I think the true power of video rests in its marriage of both sound and image.
- most people wanted to sit with the piece longer than one cycle. This is good. However, the underlying criticism of this is that I should have made the piece longer, chosen maybe 1 mood, or made each section longer.
- The discussion on Saturday kept coming back to the idea of audience expectations. This was most interesting because it made me think about all the unexpected, or extraneous things that audience members might focus on with my piece. For example, the whole thing about people spending ages in the space and not touching my piece because they didn't really it was a piece and the signifiers for a camera on a tripod are not to approach. This throws a whole new debate about my piece out there. And I need to be careful about such things because it can detract from what I am more interested in communicating with people.
- The other thing that comes to mind about being trapped behind the camera is that one of the interesting things about Janet Cardiff's video walks was that even though the viewer is behind the camera, their bodies are in motion, which seems like a freer way of experiencing the piece and perhaps enhances the viewer's embodiment of the piece. (I do believe Harriet made some comment along these lines when she viewed my test piece!)
- The piece was TOO hidden. I didn't want the performance to be in your face. But I wanted people to be aware of it. People were aware of my presence more than they were of the video. Sadly, my presence was nowhere near as interesting as the video.
- Do I need to be in the space to make the piece "work"? Are people walking away with what I intended when my presence in real time isn't there?
- Do I need to control when the viewers encounter me in the physical space?
- Is it interesting to have it unravel completely differently for every viewer?
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
The Emancipated Spectator
Just finished reading the article "The Emancipated Spectator" by Jacques Rancière and wanted to recommend it to my fellow VLPers who don't have Amanda as your reading group tutor. A copy of it is in the folder in the studio.
It's an interesting walk through different ways of interpreting knowledge and ignorance , and roles that 'distance' can play in our understanding. All this with theatre as the framework that he uses to argue his points.
Take this nugget that is the call out on the last page of the article:
Looking forward to the discussion tomorrow. All sorts of thoughts bubbling through my head.
It's an interesting walk through different ways of interpreting knowledge and ignorance , and roles that 'distance' can play in our understanding. All this with theatre as the framework that he uses to argue his points.
Take this nugget that is the call out on the last page of the article:
Theater should question its privileging of living presence and bring the stage back to a level of equality with the telling of a story or the writing and the reading of a book. It should call for spectators who are active interpreters, who render their own translation, who appropriate the story for themselves and who ultimately make their own story out of it. An emancipated community is in fact a community of storytellers and translators.
Looking forward to the discussion tomorrow. All sorts of thoughts bubbling through my head.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
It's all Geek to me!
I'm researching tools that should help me realize my vision of a live melee comprised of body-based sounds and images (keep those fart jokes to yourself!)
Although there has been discussion previously, today is serious Day One on that journey. So much so that I'm unable to communicate what I've learned so far.
I will post links:
Object oriented programming software:
Isadora - http://www.troikatronix.com/isadora.html
Max/MSP - http://www.cycling74.com/products/maxmsp
PureData - http://puredata.info/
Microcontroller hubs, boards, something like that... (laugh now, but in a month I'll be looking at you as if you're a luddite because you don't know what I'm talking about):
Arduino - http://arduino.cc/
Eroktronix - http://www.eroktronix.com/
Here's my favorite quote of the day:
So if you yearn for an electromagnetic catapult that flings jelly at the audience every time you rattle your tambourine, or a USB incense burner which radiates progressively stronger smells as the temperature in the church hall rises, Pure Data can help you achieve this!
****YES!****
I just wrote, re-wrote, and deleted a paragraph of panicky apprehension about going down this route. I realize that I need to stave off the panic until I really invest the time to at least try to learn some of this because I can see that proficiency in this type of programming will lead to lots of interesting possibilities moving forward.
Next steps:
- try these things out
- understand enough to be able to ask the right questions to get the help from others that I need.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Assessment round 1 site
Uploaded the website I designed for this first round of assessments.
Click HERE to view!
The only thing missing from the site are the workshop outlines I created for the ones I conducted myself. I'm happy to share them with folks on the course if you're curious. Just email me or comment here and I'll send them to you.
Click HERE to view!
The only thing missing from the site are the workshop outlines I created for the ones I conducted myself. I'm happy to share them with folks on the course if you're curious. Just email me or comment here and I'll send them to you.
Monday, 14 January 2008
Research Proposal - Bibliography
In case some references are useful to others for their research. I'm still looking for more good references (both theorists and artists) that deal with embodiment and technology.
Please comment if you can point me towards some.
Annotated Bibliography
Books
Brine, D. and L. Keidan eds., 2007. Programme Notes - Case studies for locating experimental theatre. London: Live Art Development Agency.
Case studies and interviews with key experimental theatre companies and artists (e.g. Tim Etchells and Forced Entertainment, Stationhouse Opera, Kira O'Reilly, Duckie) currently working in the UK. Most case studies argue for the importance of open dialogue and partnership between mainstream venues and smaller, experimental companies.
Goldberg, R., ed., 2007. Performa: New Visual Art Performance. New York: Performa Productions.
Compilation of documentation and interviews with artists who participated in Performa 05 in New York City. Foreword and Introduction offered an excellent argument for the resurgence in performance in the past decade and the challenges that arise when trying to preserve these primarily ephemeral moments in time for future generations.
Gómez-Peña, G., 2005. Ethno-Techno: writings on performance, activism, and pedagogy. London: Routledge.
A collection of essays which firmly situate Gomez-Pena's work within a political, artistic and cultural framework with a transparent account of his group's workshop and performance devising models. I was particularly interested in his description of "being" as opposed to "performing," development of personas, and how to pitch a live work when you are intertwining yourself with your audience. Also excellent resource to see how an artist explains his work to the rest of the world.
Govan, E., H. Nicholson, and K. Normington, 2007. Making a Performance: Devising histories and contemporary practices. London: Routledge.
Similar content to Lehmann, but in much plainer English and updated with examples from the last 8 years. Pragmatic account of history of devising and useful categorization of current practices that will continue to be useful when devising content and forms for new work.
Lehmann, H-T., 2006. Post-Dramatic Theatre. Translated from German by Karen Jürs-Munby. London: Routledge. (originally published in 1999).
Historical context for current performance trends in Europe and the United States. "Panorama of Postdramatic Theatre" section will be a useful resource for elements to consider when devising a new piece.
Zaporah, R., 1995. Action Theater: The Improvisation of Presence. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Detailed account of Zaporah's 21 day Action Theater workshop process with clear explanations about what each exercise is attempting to draw out of participants. I've used this as a key reference when developing the progression of exercises for the workshops I've led this past fall. Also instrumental in bringing my attention to the infinite resources for expression within the body.
Zaporah, R., 2007. Embodied Content in Action Theater Manual: A Practice Book for the Experienced Improvisor. Santa Fe, NM: ZAP Performance Projects. pp. 10-12.
Concise description of 3 levels of awareness that occur in your body when developing content in an improvisation setting. Of particular interest is her notion that we should always start content development from a place fully rooted in the body and be cautious of moving too quickly into attaching meaning or a narrative structure to that first "level".
Conference Papers & Seminars
Jones, A., 2007. Screen Eroticism: Contrasting Intimacies in the work of Carolee Schneeman and Piplotti Rist. Paper presented at Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
A comparative study of works by feminist artists in which Jones looks at how the chosen medium for projection impacts the way that the erotic content and intimacy is communicated. Most interesting points regarding my interests: Schneeman turned film into a skin collaging cutting and baking it creating a deeper level of engagement with both the material and the subject. Rist's piece gains intimacy for viewer because it's on a TV which is a familiar object in our everyday lives.
Jones, S. 2007. De-second naturing: performance's intimate work in a world of terror. Paper presented at Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
Simon Jones warned against taking performance to one of two extremes - objectification into a grand narrative or subjectivism and infantilism. A person isn't adequately expressed in the purely social or intimate. Performance can (and should in his opinion) act "as a gerund" in between these states.
Ponton, A. 2007. Eye to I. Paper presented at Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
Ponton contends that new technologies are giving people (and performers) a new arena which extends how our notions of "Self" can be shaped. Also of interest were statements that presence and absence are no longer discreet states, considering the gaze as a form of touch, and asked whether we can consider any work of art to be immediate and unmediated?
Sermon, P. 2007. (Dis)Embodiment Seminar as part of Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
Sermon presented his work of networked telematic video projects that connected people in different locations through composite video images. His current work revolves around a gallery he has created in Second Life. In all his work, he is interested in Lacan’s definition of Self and how that is translated into the digital sphere.
Workshops
Action Theater (workshop leader: Kate Hilder). September - December 2007, movingartsbase, London, UK.
Technique which tunes your attention into what is happening in your body at any given moment and allows you to become fascinated in that moment as the foundation for an improvised performance. Exercises developed to increase awareness of the body's modes of expression through movement, sound and speech and experimentation with motion vs. stillness, fast vs. slow, noise vs. silence, etc. Embodiment on the most essential level - moving your awareness deep into your body integrating what is happening in both mind and body in reaction to your surroundings.
Intimacy and Recorded Presence (workshop leader: Kelli Dipple). At Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
This workshop revisited ideas originally raised in Shahar Dor's Improvideo workshop. Dipple also raised the argument that you can achieve a greater level of intimacy with a camera than you can in a face-to-face encounter "You can't do this because I'm a person, but you can do this because I'm a machine." Dipple also had useful advice to overcome anxiety about documentation of live performances never capturing the 'real' epxerience: think of it as "versioning" as opposed to documentation. Different versions of the performance that the public can interact with at different moments in time.
Improvideo (workshop leaders: Shahar Dor and Amit Shalev). August 2007, Chisenhale Dance Space, London, UK.
Workshop conducted by Israeli dancer and videographer based on improvisation exercises designed to establish a greater understanding of the relationship between the performer and camera performer. Introduced me to the idea of keeping your body "active" as a performer when you are operating the camera. Exposed us to interacting with the “larger system” by conducting several exercises out in the public sphere, including a day-long project in SoHo and Trafalgar Square.
Performances
Complicite, A Disappearing Number. Barbican Centre, London September, 2007.
Interesting use of video shifting between roles as character and set (foreground/background)
Filter, Water. Hammersmith Lyric, London. October, 2007.
Brechtian format which involved sound engineer and stage manager on stage for the whole performance. Actors were also involved in generating sounds and lighting effects in real time during the performance and I was interested to see how they shifted seamlessly between character and technician throughout.
Phillip Glass, Music in 12 Parts. Barbican Centre, London. November, 2007.
I was impressed by the effect of a technically challenging durational piece on the performers. It seemed inevitable that the performers would lose their place or miss a note at some point during the 4 hour piece.
Grains of Sound. ICA, London. November, 2007.
Classic example of laptop-based musicians in passive tech operator mode. Performers’ bodies were completely disengaged from considering the impact that their physical presence might have on audience members. One set was an exception. They chose to perform in darkness, forcing the audience to focus solely on the sound, which is what they wanted.
Further Research
Auslander, P., 1999. Liveness - Performance in a Mediatized Culture. London: Routledge.
Checkhov, M., 1953. To The Actor- on the technique of acting. New York: Harper & Row.
Julia Bardsley recommended section on the psychological gesture as a character development strategy.
Carman, T. and M. B. N. Hansen eds., 2005. Cambridge Companion to Merleau-Ponty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, A., 2006. Self-Image: Technology, Representation, and the Contemporary Subject. London: Routledge.
Reynolds, J., 2004. Merleau-Ponty and Derrida: Intertwining embodiment and alterity. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Smith, M. and Morna, J., eds., 2006. The Prosthetic Impulse: From a Posthuman Present to a Biocultural Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Please comment if you can point me towards some.
Annotated Bibliography
Books
Brine, D. and L. Keidan eds., 2007. Programme Notes - Case studies for locating experimental theatre. London: Live Art Development Agency.
Case studies and interviews with key experimental theatre companies and artists (e.g. Tim Etchells and Forced Entertainment, Stationhouse Opera, Kira O'Reilly, Duckie) currently working in the UK. Most case studies argue for the importance of open dialogue and partnership between mainstream venues and smaller, experimental companies.
Goldberg, R., ed., 2007. Performa: New Visual Art Performance. New York: Performa Productions.
Compilation of documentation and interviews with artists who participated in Performa 05 in New York City. Foreword and Introduction offered an excellent argument for the resurgence in performance in the past decade and the challenges that arise when trying to preserve these primarily ephemeral moments in time for future generations.
Gómez-Peña, G., 2005. Ethno-Techno: writings on performance, activism, and pedagogy. London: Routledge.
A collection of essays which firmly situate Gomez-Pena's work within a political, artistic and cultural framework with a transparent account of his group's workshop and performance devising models. I was particularly interested in his description of "being" as opposed to "performing," development of personas, and how to pitch a live work when you are intertwining yourself with your audience. Also excellent resource to see how an artist explains his work to the rest of the world.
Govan, E., H. Nicholson, and K. Normington, 2007. Making a Performance: Devising histories and contemporary practices. London: Routledge.
Similar content to Lehmann, but in much plainer English and updated with examples from the last 8 years. Pragmatic account of history of devising and useful categorization of current practices that will continue to be useful when devising content and forms for new work.
Lehmann, H-T., 2006. Post-Dramatic Theatre. Translated from German by Karen Jürs-Munby. London: Routledge. (originally published in 1999).
Historical context for current performance trends in Europe and the United States. "Panorama of Postdramatic Theatre" section will be a useful resource for elements to consider when devising a new piece.
Zaporah, R., 1995. Action Theater: The Improvisation of Presence. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Detailed account of Zaporah's 21 day Action Theater workshop process with clear explanations about what each exercise is attempting to draw out of participants. I've used this as a key reference when developing the progression of exercises for the workshops I've led this past fall. Also instrumental in bringing my attention to the infinite resources for expression within the body.
Zaporah, R., 2007. Embodied Content in Action Theater Manual: A Practice Book for the Experienced Improvisor. Santa Fe, NM: ZAP Performance Projects. pp. 10-12.
Concise description of 3 levels of awareness that occur in your body when developing content in an improvisation setting. Of particular interest is her notion that we should always start content development from a place fully rooted in the body and be cautious of moving too quickly into attaching meaning or a narrative structure to that first "level".
Conference Papers & Seminars
Jones, A., 2007. Screen Eroticism: Contrasting Intimacies in the work of Carolee Schneeman and Piplotti Rist. Paper presented at Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
A comparative study of works by feminist artists in which Jones looks at how the chosen medium for projection impacts the way that the erotic content and intimacy is communicated. Most interesting points regarding my interests: Schneeman turned film into a skin collaging cutting and baking it creating a deeper level of engagement with both the material and the subject. Rist's piece gains intimacy for viewer because it's on a TV which is a familiar object in our everyday lives.
Jones, S. 2007. De-second naturing: performance's intimate work in a world of terror. Paper presented at Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
Simon Jones warned against taking performance to one of two extremes - objectification into a grand narrative or subjectivism and infantilism. A person isn't adequately expressed in the purely social or intimate. Performance can (and should in his opinion) act "as a gerund" in between these states.
Ponton, A. 2007. Eye to I. Paper presented at Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
Ponton contends that new technologies are giving people (and performers) a new arena which extends how our notions of "Self" can be shaped. Also of interest were statements that presence and absence are no longer discreet states, considering the gaze as a form of touch, and asked whether we can consider any work of art to be immediate and unmediated?
Sermon, P. 2007. (Dis)Embodiment Seminar as part of Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
Sermon presented his work of networked telematic video projects that connected people in different locations through composite video images. His current work revolves around a gallery he has created in Second Life. In all his work, he is interested in Lacan’s definition of Self and how that is translated into the digital sphere.
Workshops
Action Theater (workshop leader: Kate Hilder). September - December 2007, movingartsbase, London, UK.
Technique which tunes your attention into what is happening in your body at any given moment and allows you to become fascinated in that moment as the foundation for an improvised performance. Exercises developed to increase awareness of the body's modes of expression through movement, sound and speech and experimentation with motion vs. stillness, fast vs. slow, noise vs. silence, etc. Embodiment on the most essential level - moving your awareness deep into your body integrating what is happening in both mind and body in reaction to your surroundings.
Intimacy and Recorded Presence (workshop leader: Kelli Dipple). At Intimacy across visceral and digital performance, December 2007, University of London - Goldsmiths, London, UK.
This workshop revisited ideas originally raised in Shahar Dor's Improvideo workshop. Dipple also raised the argument that you can achieve a greater level of intimacy with a camera than you can in a face-to-face encounter "You can't do this because I'm a person, but you can do this because I'm a machine." Dipple also had useful advice to overcome anxiety about documentation of live performances never capturing the 'real' epxerience: think of it as "versioning" as opposed to documentation. Different versions of the performance that the public can interact with at different moments in time.
Improvideo (workshop leaders: Shahar Dor and Amit Shalev). August 2007, Chisenhale Dance Space, London, UK.
Workshop conducted by Israeli dancer and videographer based on improvisation exercises designed to establish a greater understanding of the relationship between the performer and camera performer. Introduced me to the idea of keeping your body "active" as a performer when you are operating the camera. Exposed us to interacting with the “larger system” by conducting several exercises out in the public sphere, including a day-long project in SoHo and Trafalgar Square.
Performances
Complicite, A Disappearing Number. Barbican Centre, London September, 2007.
Interesting use of video shifting between roles as character and set (foreground/background)
Filter, Water. Hammersmith Lyric, London. October, 2007.
Brechtian format which involved sound engineer and stage manager on stage for the whole performance. Actors were also involved in generating sounds and lighting effects in real time during the performance and I was interested to see how they shifted seamlessly between character and technician throughout.
Phillip Glass, Music in 12 Parts. Barbican Centre, London. November, 2007.
I was impressed by the effect of a technically challenging durational piece on the performers. It seemed inevitable that the performers would lose their place or miss a note at some point during the 4 hour piece.
Grains of Sound. ICA, London. November, 2007.
Classic example of laptop-based musicians in passive tech operator mode. Performers’ bodies were completely disengaged from considering the impact that their physical presence might have on audience members. One set was an exception. They chose to perform in darkness, forcing the audience to focus solely on the sound, which is what they wanted.
Further Research
Auslander, P., 1999. Liveness - Performance in a Mediatized Culture. London: Routledge.
Checkhov, M., 1953. To The Actor- on the technique of acting. New York: Harper & Row.
Julia Bardsley recommended section on the psychological gesture as a character development strategy.
Carman, T. and M. B. N. Hansen eds., 2005. Cambridge Companion to Merleau-Ponty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, A., 2006. Self-Image: Technology, Representation, and the Contemporary Subject. London: Routledge.
Reynolds, J., 2004. Merleau-Ponty and Derrida: Intertwining embodiment and alterity. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Smith, M. and Morna, J., eds., 2006. The Prosthetic Impulse: From a Posthuman Present to a Biocultural Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
From the archives: First Research Synopsis
Current Research Synopsis 2007
MA Theatre – Visual Language of Performance
Primary research – The use of improvisation in interdisciplinary performance
I am conducting a critical analysis of the use of improvisation techniques in historical and contemporary interdisciplinary performances. I am interested in both how improvisation has been used to facilitate collaborations amongst artists and how it is used to devise final performances.
I am researching techniques of avant garde groups of the 1950s and 60s such as the Black Mountain College (Cage, Cunningham, Rauschenberg) and Fluxus event scores. This time period has had a strong influence on my collaborations to date and I would like to examine how these early performances have influenced contemporary performance groups. Contemporary groups that I would like to study further include Complicite, The Wooster Group, Forced Entertainment, and Filter.
Questions
- How are contemporary companies incorporating different types of media into their performances?
- How are they using improvisation techniques to devise a final performance?
- How have the early avant garde techniques influenced contemporary performance?
- Are there aspects of early performances not widely adopted today that could benefit contemporary practice?
- What techniques have groups such as the Wooster Group or Complicite preserved from their early work in their current practice?
- What criticism do the artists have of their own work and the direction it has taken (ie the impact of commercialization on what they feel they can produce?)
- How does my work further the tradition of improvisation in interdisciplinary performance?
Workshops
To complement my theoretical work, I am conducting workshops open to artists from all backgrounds to try out techniques that come out of my research. This term, I am working with simple exercises drawn from different creative disciplines designed to increase the vocabulary available to express their ideas and explore their discipline in a perfomative context. Moving forward, I plan to examine how the use of varying levels of pre-determined parameters or event scores affect interactions between performers and how different types of constraints can be used to create a dynamic final performance.
Secondary research – Solo artists with interdisciplinary practices
I would like to test out some of the theories I develop from my primary research as a solo performer. Since my primary creative discipline is performance-based video, I am revisiting the work of artists such as Bill Viola, Vito Acconci, and Nam June Paik. I’m also interested in researching Laurie Anderson and Meredith Monk, and would like to locate some contemporary London-based solo artists who do interdisciplinary work.
Questions
- What are solo performers asking/demanding of/communicating to their audiences with the choice to present themselves alone on stage?
- What are ways of creating connections with an audience where they feel included in the performance? Through non-verbal communication? Through technology? Are there particular shapes, forms, or perspectives?
- Should issues of intimacy actually be the primary theme of my research?
Outcome
My longer term interest is to form my own interdisciplinary performance troupe–not only as an opportunity to develop my own work, but also to create a support structure and opportunity for other artists to work in this area.
Questions
- What are the implications of my research for my continued practice? As a solo artist? As a workshop leader? As artistic director of my own company?
MA Theatre – Visual Language of Performance
Primary research – The use of improvisation in interdisciplinary performance
I am conducting a critical analysis of the use of improvisation techniques in historical and contemporary interdisciplinary performances. I am interested in both how improvisation has been used to facilitate collaborations amongst artists and how it is used to devise final performances.
I am researching techniques of avant garde groups of the 1950s and 60s such as the Black Mountain College (Cage, Cunningham, Rauschenberg) and Fluxus event scores. This time period has had a strong influence on my collaborations to date and I would like to examine how these early performances have influenced contemporary performance groups. Contemporary groups that I would like to study further include Complicite, The Wooster Group, Forced Entertainment, and Filter.
Questions
- How are contemporary companies incorporating different types of media into their performances?
- How are they using improvisation techniques to devise a final performance?
- How have the early avant garde techniques influenced contemporary performance?
- Are there aspects of early performances not widely adopted today that could benefit contemporary practice?
- What techniques have groups such as the Wooster Group or Complicite preserved from their early work in their current practice?
- What criticism do the artists have of their own work and the direction it has taken (ie the impact of commercialization on what they feel they can produce?)
- How does my work further the tradition of improvisation in interdisciplinary performance?
Workshops
To complement my theoretical work, I am conducting workshops open to artists from all backgrounds to try out techniques that come out of my research. This term, I am working with simple exercises drawn from different creative disciplines designed to increase the vocabulary available to express their ideas and explore their discipline in a perfomative context. Moving forward, I plan to examine how the use of varying levels of pre-determined parameters or event scores affect interactions between performers and how different types of constraints can be used to create a dynamic final performance.
Secondary research – Solo artists with interdisciplinary practices
I would like to test out some of the theories I develop from my primary research as a solo performer. Since my primary creative discipline is performance-based video, I am revisiting the work of artists such as Bill Viola, Vito Acconci, and Nam June Paik. I’m also interested in researching Laurie Anderson and Meredith Monk, and would like to locate some contemporary London-based solo artists who do interdisciplinary work.
Questions
- What are solo performers asking/demanding of/communicating to their audiences with the choice to present themselves alone on stage?
- What are ways of creating connections with an audience where they feel included in the performance? Through non-verbal communication? Through technology? Are there particular shapes, forms, or perspectives?
- Should issues of intimacy actually be the primary theme of my research?
Outcome
My longer term interest is to form my own interdisciplinary performance troupe–not only as an opportunity to develop my own work, but also to create a support structure and opportunity for other artists to work in this area.
Questions
- What are the implications of my research for my continued practice? As a solo artist? As a workshop leader? As artistic director of my own company?
From the archives: Learning Agreement
Before posting my Research Proposal, I thought I'd post the Learning Agreement and outline of research interests that J.M. asked us to submit to him before our first critical studies tutorial. Might as well let it all hang out, eh? I post these as is, without comment from the over-active peanut gallery in my head.
Aims (outline the purpose, scope, visions and ambition of your plan of work)
Research
1. Conduct a brief historical survey of avant garde performance
2. Select and begin analysis of 3-4 contemporary performance groups who work across disciplines, and who use improvisation to devise performances and/or incorporate improvisation into the final piece
3. Review the practices of a range of solo artists/performers who incorporate multiple disciplines into their work.
Practice
1. Explore an interdisciplinary solo performance practice
2. Begin to conduct improvisation-based workshops with artists from different backgrounds
2 Objectives (The expected objectives leading towards the learning outcomes of the unit)
Research
1. The historical survey will allow me to more clearly explain the lineage that my work is part of. I also hope to learn more specifics about techniques used throughout avant garde performance to give me a solid framework upon which to build new exercises that will translate well into a contemporary interdisciplinary performance.
2. Case studies of contemporary groups will give me some models currently in practice to help situate myself within contemporary practice, either aligning with or reacting against trends that come up. Focussing on a few groups instead of doing an overview survey will also give me insight into how companies present their work to the outside world and how it is critiqued.
3. Looking at solo performers will give me inspiration for exploring a solo performance practice that draws on my training in several disciplines, and ideas for engaging the audience when there is only one person to focus on.
Practice
1. Solo practice will give me another perspective on how the techniques I am developing for the workshops translate when applied to another performance mode. I will also be able to determine whether I would like to develop a solo performance practice in its own right or if it is simply a useful tool for a deeper understanding of exercises that I will be sharing with others.
2. The weekly workshops will give me experience in running workshops, explore modes of creative expression available in a performance context, test out exercises that come out of my research to see if they translate well to a group of artists from mixed backgrounds and/or are good at fostering a strong, collaborative group dynamic. At the end of this term, I would like to have a stronger sense of a good progression of exercises to use in workshops so that I can focus on devising a final performance with a group of artists who are serious about participating in this performance.
3 The Plan of Work describing the principal stages and timescale of the work
1) Historical survey 3-4 weeks
i. Determine initial bibliography and start reading (in progress)
ii. Locate any visual reference that could be useful in development of practice (ongoing)
iii. Develop outline highlighting key themes, moments, movements, artists that are particularly relevant to my practice (Dec)
2) Solo performance 6 weeks
i. Determine list of solo artists to explore further (in progress)
ii. Sketch ideas that spring from research, workshops & lectures (ongoing)
iii. Weekly dedicated practice time to try out ideas (ongoing)
iv. Outline themes and issues that have arisen from practice and research (Dec/Jan)
3) Group Workshops 7 weeks
i. Evaluate techniques from ongoing research (historical, contemporary & solo practice)
ii. Develop workshop plans for weekly workshops with an informal group of artists (weekly)
iii. Describe workshop plan and evaluate each workshop after its been conducted (weekly)
iv. Analyze themes in critique that has arisen from workshops at end of term (Dec/Jan)
4) Selection of contemporary practitioners for case studies 8 weeks
i. Review contemporary companies on VLP website (complete)
ii. Attend performances in London (ongoing)
iii. Select companies for deeper review (Dec)
• Access to information on group, documentation of performances
Aims (outline the purpose, scope, visions and ambition of your plan of work)
Research
1. Conduct a brief historical survey of avant garde performance
2. Select and begin analysis of 3-4 contemporary performance groups who work across disciplines, and who use improvisation to devise performances and/or incorporate improvisation into the final piece
3. Review the practices of a range of solo artists/performers who incorporate multiple disciplines into their work.
Practice
1. Explore an interdisciplinary solo performance practice
2. Begin to conduct improvisation-based workshops with artists from different backgrounds
2 Objectives (The expected objectives leading towards the learning outcomes of the unit)
Research
1. The historical survey will allow me to more clearly explain the lineage that my work is part of. I also hope to learn more specifics about techniques used throughout avant garde performance to give me a solid framework upon which to build new exercises that will translate well into a contemporary interdisciplinary performance.
2. Case studies of contemporary groups will give me some models currently in practice to help situate myself within contemporary practice, either aligning with or reacting against trends that come up. Focussing on a few groups instead of doing an overview survey will also give me insight into how companies present their work to the outside world and how it is critiqued.
3. Looking at solo performers will give me inspiration for exploring a solo performance practice that draws on my training in several disciplines, and ideas for engaging the audience when there is only one person to focus on.
Practice
1. Solo practice will give me another perspective on how the techniques I am developing for the workshops translate when applied to another performance mode. I will also be able to determine whether I would like to develop a solo performance practice in its own right or if it is simply a useful tool for a deeper understanding of exercises that I will be sharing with others.
2. The weekly workshops will give me experience in running workshops, explore modes of creative expression available in a performance context, test out exercises that come out of my research to see if they translate well to a group of artists from mixed backgrounds and/or are good at fostering a strong, collaborative group dynamic. At the end of this term, I would like to have a stronger sense of a good progression of exercises to use in workshops so that I can focus on devising a final performance with a group of artists who are serious about participating in this performance.
3 The Plan of Work describing the principal stages and timescale of the work
1) Historical survey 3-4 weeks
i. Determine initial bibliography and start reading (in progress)
ii. Locate any visual reference that could be useful in development of practice (ongoing)
iii. Develop outline highlighting key themes, moments, movements, artists that are particularly relevant to my practice (Dec)
2) Solo performance 6 weeks
i. Determine list of solo artists to explore further (in progress)
ii. Sketch ideas that spring from research, workshops & lectures (ongoing)
iii. Weekly dedicated practice time to try out ideas (ongoing)
iv. Outline themes and issues that have arisen from practice and research (Dec/Jan)
3) Group Workshops 7 weeks
i. Evaluate techniques from ongoing research (historical, contemporary & solo practice)
ii. Develop workshop plans for weekly workshops with an informal group of artists (weekly)
iii. Describe workshop plan and evaluate each workshop after its been conducted (weekly)
iv. Analyze themes in critique that has arisen from workshops at end of term (Dec/Jan)
4) Selection of contemporary practitioners for case studies 8 weeks
i. Review contemporary companies on VLP website (complete)
ii. Attend performances in London (ongoing)
iii. Select companies for deeper review (Dec)
• Access to information on group, documentation of performances
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
