Goat Island: helping me begin.

On Sunday, 18 May, I took a day long workshop with Goat Island at Siobhan Davies Studios in Elephant & Castle. Their work has come up time and again in my research and there was enough said to peak my interest without really being able to put my finger on why. After this workshop, and seeing their performance of their new and "last" performance The Lastmaker this past Saturday, I have a better understanding of why.

Their work is intellectually deep, physically demanding, and pretty abstract. Yet I never lost sight of the 5 people on stage as being anything but "themselves" or, maybe in other words, of how human they were. When they were doing ensemble choreographies, they would often be doing the same movements, but in their own way. There was not a pinch of arrogance or aloofness in anything they did.

This is the pitch I would love to achieve with my work. Watching their performance made me want to run off and join their circus. But for now, obviously, I've got to do my own thing. And use a tool and material that they gave me to begin this final phase of developing a performance for September.

They say it better than I can about their technique:

Goat Island performance work is a series of responses: to the exercises we give ourselves, to our surroundings, to the events of the world, but mostly, to each other. We perform responses for each other back and forth. The conversation goes further than were we just talking. At the end of the conversation we have a piece in front of us and it's ready to show. These conversations take place over a long period of time. As in a chess match, each response is carefully considered. Time, and therefore, dreams and reverie are part of the conversation. These conversations can be two years long. This gives time for a history to grow and for us to interpret it, for distortions to take on their own meaning, their own demands.
(from their website)

This technique of "response" was also brought up in the last workshop I blogged about. I'm finding that I resonate with this way of producing material. I need to constantly "do" and review to understand what is going on with my work. I think this technique also lends itself to performing with my recorded image on video screens. Echoes, layers, sparks...many words to describe the effect. And most importantly, it helps answer that question

WHERE DO I BEGIN?!?!?!

A quote that we were given in the workshop before a 10 minute walk to the Imperial War Museum:

The intricate cooperation of muscle and nerve fibers produce the means by which an organism interacts with its surrounding environment. That cooperation has a name which is movement. When the environment itself enters into fibrillation, it is the whole system (organism/environment) that becomes convulsive. The body absorbs all the shocks only to release them later on, in another time space, as unforeseen motions, reorganizing as much as outlining the distribution of violence in the nervous system. - Andre Lepecki from his book Exhausting Dance

Right now, I'm working with echoes from the Goat Island workshop. As with a natural echo down a canyon, this one goes through phases, not just evenly getting quieter the further away it gets from me in time and space, but occasionally getting louder as it bounces off a particularly well curved canyon wall.

I loved this quote from Andre Lepecki, especially the part about the body absorbing shocks only to release them later. That's exactly what is going on with me as I continue to process that workshop. I decided to use this quote as a literal starting point for my rehearsal time last week. I did a couple of recordings that I'm digitizing and will continue to build off of tomorrow when I go back. I'm going to play with Isadora tomorrow too and see how that goes. Will post the results early next week. or rather, will post the process early next week.

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.

Research Proposal - January 2008

Activating the Body of a Tech Performer

Embodiment theory is used across the performance spectrum to develop performance personae and devise content. Applied to performers whose work involves the use of technology (e.g. live camera, VJ, electronic sound artists,) some of these ideas could be a starting point to develop active “tech performers” as opposed to the more traditional, passive “tech operators.” The first embodiment concept of interest is that the individual’s mind and body are inseparable since they are both part of a single entity. Ruth Zaporah’s Action Theater and Guillermo Gomez-Peña’s Pocha Nostra are two techniques that draw on this notion to develop a performer’s “presence” outside the traditional notions of representational theatre. The second concept is that the individual is part of a larger system. This “larger system” includes other performers, audience, performance space, and community, as described in accounts of the Happenings during the 1960s and 1970s and advocated by artists such as Richard Schechner (Govan, 2007.)

Guillermo Gomez-Peña has a pragmatic description of the distinction between perfomance art and traditional acting in his essay "In Defense of Performance, XXII Time and Space” (Gomez-Peña, 2005.) Performers must develop a sense of “presence” as opposed to “representation”; “being here” in the space as opposed to “acting” (ibid, p.39.) In performance art, the audience is up next to you, interacting with you. "Every detail and every small gesture makes a statement." (ibid, p.126.) Gomez-Peña’s strategy for developing a performance “persona” is deeply rooted in embodiment theory. The development of a persona draws on a performer’s experience and personal contradictions and is then “activated” through the exploration of actions that "contain the flesh and bones" of the emerging persona (ibid, p.127) and begins to communicate the hallmarks of the performance persona. Finally, the body is transformed into “performance mode” starting with transforming the face and expression, down through to the feet until the persona inhabits every pore of the performer.

Ruth Zaporah’s Action Theater offers performance strategies such as “the improvisation of presence” (1995) and “embodied content” (2007) which stem from her background as a dancer and an improvisor. To gain full performance presence, the body is tuned through a series of exercises that break down the performer’s actions to the most elemental states*. An accutely detailed awareness of and fascination with both physical and psychic states at all times is key to developing a performance because all content will arise from this presence. As Zaporah puts it, these “sensory details are the signs and arrows that point in the direction of your next move.” (Zaporah, 1995. p.109) Through this process, an active performer emerges ready to trust that every experience that arises from the body will create a stimulating performance.

Gomez-Peña and Zaporah both believe that all performances start in the body** and also stress the importance of positioning the individual performer in the larger system to draw content from and feedback into. They join the wider chorus of artists who believe that involving the larger system in performance is inevitable because performers simply are part of a wider context (Zaporah, 1995.) A notable voice in this chorus is Richard Schechner who comments that “in performance art the ‘distance’ between the really real (socially, personally, with the audience, with the performers) is much less than in drama theater...” (Gomez-Peña, 2005, p.38) Contemplating this distance can provide performers with rich ground to develop performances from and also affirms the need for acute, detailed awareness of the performer’s body that both Zaporah and Gomez-Peña advocate for.

I plan to use the aspects of embodiment discussed in this proposal as a lens through which to reconcile a couple of issues that interest me as I strive to become an active video-based “tech performer.” The first is to consider my physical presence in the performance, the relationship between my body, the camera and other performers, and ultimately what this communicates to the audience. This challenge arose in both Shahar Dor’s Improvideo and Kelli Dipple’s Intimacy and Recorded Presence workshops that I participated in this fall. The second issue is a personal challenge to return to a basic, no-frills definition of technology that I can apply to my video work–technology as a tool to allow the body to do something it cannot do on its own. Referencing work of body-based performers such as Gomez-Peña and Zaporah will continue to be useful as I explore these issues in my practice. I need to locate performers who I believe have successfully achieved the goal of active “tech performer” as a next step in my research.

I also see a need to elaborate on the relationship between individual and technology in my research. In his foreword to Performa: New Visual Art Performance, Hal Foster claims that the performance art of the 1960s and 1970s was a reaction to the increased mediation of art. He goes on to state that 30 years on, performance’s relationship to media has now been reconciled (Goldberg, 2007.) However, after attending the conference Intimacy across visceral and digital performance (2007), it is clear that there are still a large number of performers and scholars who have not reconciled or actively reject technological mediation of live performance. At the conference, embodiment theory was used on both sides to simultaneously argue that the presence of technology dilutes the impact of the live act and that it heightens emotional communication (e.g. camera close-ups) and can be an extension of Self (e.g. online avatars (Sermon, 2007.)) There is an opportunity for me to enter into this debate through my proposed research. In keeping with embodiment theory, I see possibilities of the “individual and technology” relationship working on many different levels. At the moment, I consider this relationship as part of the exercise of the individual to integrate mind and body into a moment of presence during the performance. Technology might also be used as a catalyst to bridge the explorations of the individual performer to the different levels of the larger system.

Footnotes:
* This description is based on my personal experience of the technique as a participant in a 10-week workshop conducted by Action Theater practioner Kate Hilder during the fall of 2007 in London.

** My system of thought tends to be both emotionally and corporeally based. In fact, the performance always begins in my skin and muscles, projects itself onto the social sphere, and returns via my psyche, back to my body and into my bloodstream, only to be refracted back into the social world via documentation. Whatever thoughts I can't embody, I tend to distrust. Whatever ideas I can't feel way deep inside, I rend to disregard. (Gomez-Peña, 2005, pp.30-31)

... [we] tend to act with our attention ... in the function, intention, or language of an action. We deny the body its role as collaborator....In the perfect moment ... there is only congruent action–the body, the expression of the face and eyes, the state of mind, the voice, and narrative are all inseparable, spontaneously arising moment by moment from the same source of imaginative awareness. (Zaporah, 2007. p.12)

Transformation into a performer.

Contemplation this week focussed on developing my performance presence. The challenge of finding that state which is still you, but a you that has stepped into a different realm fully connected to the performance, the other performers, the audience, the space, the duration of the piece; primed to draw from all of this information and feed back into this system as a performer. Man, this is hard! And yet, this is what interests me about embodiment.

Guillermo Gómez-Peña describes it as "Presence vs. Representation" "Being as opposed to acting" How do you make a moment "real" while still being in a heightened state of reality yourself (aka 'performing')? Interesting also to hear him talk about this, since the characters that he and his cohorts create are quite extreme. Of course, his natural persona seems to be rather extreme...maybe its not too far off.

I also found it important to consider the difference in proximity to your audience when you're a performance artist. Often you are directly interacting with your audience and if you take your character/performance persona too far, you aren't actually working on the same plane as your audience and that could prove problematic, possibly not making the connection you set out to make. This reminds me of acting for film where you need to scale your performance way back since the camera is often right in your face while you're acting. I used to prefer working with non-actors for my films because of this-and the fact that the only actors at UC-Santa Cruz were trained for stage acting and I couldn't be bothered to tell them that the "back of the room" was actually right in their face.

Ruth Zaporah gives an interesting challenge/warning in her essay "Embodied Content":
"The danger of assigning a concept to a sensation is that by doing so we shift our attention from the complex embodied experience itself to an idea of a complex embodied experience." This resonates for me as I try to experience what it is like to be fully present in the performance. I often create a narrative in my head as to why I'm doing certain actions and this means that I have shifted my focus only into my mind, out of the rest of my body, the room, the connection with others in the room. From here, it's easy to drop out of "performance mode." I've been criticised of doing this and was able to see myself doing it when I put together the videos for my recent round of tutorials. The most staggering drops were the quick little glances that completely dropped the connection to the task at hand. This is going to be a big hurdle to overcome. Easier in video because you can just use the good takes and edit the goofs out! Also interesting because I know that this is at the core of what Action Theater is about and yet one of my biggest criticisms of the workshop is that I feel like we are spending too much of our time discussing our experiences instead of just experiencing them.

I was interested in Julia Bardsley's description of a 3-day piece she did last weekend which she considered a workshop for developing the moods of the 3 parts of a performance she is developing. I thought it was an interesting idea to immerse yourself in a mood/world/character that you are considering working with to find out what lies within it. Her description made it sounds like she had some idea of what the environments were going to be like and that the weekend helped her get a better sense of what the actual mood was and what the character was like that resided within it.

She also recommended a traditional acting technique by Michael Chekhov called "psychological gestures". I like the idea of exploring the gestures and physicality of a character, overdoing them, even, and then bring them inside you (embodying them). I imagine that the resulting character is not a clown, but the physical research that you have done can be tapped into when it's time to perform.

I need to work on developing my performance mode. Is she a character? I think I can use that word without it having to mean caricature. Who is this person that people will encounter when they attend my performances? In my tutorial today, Ann Marie Creamer thought it might be interesting for me to explore how I'm using my doppelganger/multiple selves in my video work at the moment. This might actually be an excellent way for me to find out what my performance mode is and how this performance mode might be dynamic without dropping back into passive me. Right! Active Me vs. passive me.

My own questions:
- Who am I interacting with in my videos when there are multiple images of myself on screen?
- Who could I be interacting with?
- Who would I like to be interacting with?
- How could the exploration of gestures linked to voices be more specific to a particular state of mind/character/persona?

next post: Group project - The Hostess