18 January 2011

13 January 2011

AN INTRODUCTION, 13th January 2011
Ana Sanchez-Colberg, written 18.1.2011, Ambelokipi, usual cafe, 5.30pm


In spite of the total transport strike (that have become so common place thus rendering the whole action useless?) most of us make it to the studio. Vitoria, Erifyli and Giorgos will join next Tuesday. We decided to keep this first session as one long conversation, an introductory dialogue which I have promised to convey in note form to those not able to be here. There will be no 'practice' today, so that we all begin from the same footing next week (movement metaphors abound).

Here I am writing, slightly later than desired...how did we get here...

Mark Franko defines dance as political when (and I quote) “it is justifiable and necessary to speak dance as political in circumstances that are conjunctural; that is in circumstances where forms of movement and socio-political life take the shape simultaneously if apparently independently” (Dance Discourses, 2007, p. 12).  I have been arguing against Franco inside my head for months now:  when is dance not political, when are the network of life processes (enmeshed, not mere context or background against which something rises...)  that define dance and its bodies, its subjects, not indissoluble from the socio-political? Franco gets it wrong by thinking conservatively of history as events in time, he fails to see the issue of space, what determines how a space is occupied or not by a body-subject-object, made visible or invisible, relevant to itself as a historical entity or erased from the panorama of history that will be. To live, change that, to survive- in Greece as an artist, and in particular as a dance artist is to experience in flesh and blood (not concepts) such 'conjuncture' within the individual, each moment of one's waking life. It is not about events happening but about the more fundamental, indeed existential issue of whether events can happen at all,  how can they be made to happen, and if they do for what purpose, for what impact, for what relevance? How can artists insist on claiming a space? Make a space? (but  this needs resources of space and time, and time and space is the currency that no one is willing to trade freely in this city). Do we have to be less complacent and more activist and think beyond waiting for the 'opportunity' to have access to the crumbling structures of the dance 'industry', an industry that we all liberally criticise yet are so happy when we are finally invited to its parties. Dimitris Karalis, composer, one of the guests, speaks of 'having to give your life' for this, for art to continue to  happen, not many are prepared to seek a life in art that way... I have been meaning to get that one out of my chest for a while...(and I haven't even mentioned AKMI yet...) I feel better already....I can continue to write...

Somewhere in all this is a rationale, a raison d'etre (I love that expression:  a reason for being )  for this Lab, here and now.

We begin by considering the more detailed timetable of events (see the Page 'Timetable'), an opportunity to elaborate on the hows and whys of the particular artists 'curated' to contribute to the Choreography Lab, how each distinct session contributes to a collegiate perspective, what makes this Lab unique.  Important to the structure of the Lab is the co-existence of two mutually affective strands. On the one hand we have the sessions led by the artists, on the other we have the Lab-time where each participant (see the 'Participants Page') will be able to develop a process of research practice leading to choreographic outcomes.  Each participant will determine how one strand feeds the other;  they are welcome to make a process that tries to encompass everything encountered or can equally choose to focus on one singular idea. Whichever way what we all have agreed to do is to allow ourselves to remain open and engage with each different yet relevant perspective: to encounter and confront 'it' and by confronting 'it' confronting and encountering ourselves, the way to artistic growth.

The Lab begins with a cluster of sessions questioning 'choreography' as a parameter. Within that we start from the premise of 'the body' – as the point of departure and destination of contemporary choreography. By saying this we are purposely moving away from the idea of fashioning a language and enter into the notion of life process, as that which the body makes with itself is actually within the realm of the 'lived', not the made (see Nancy and Arendt on this one, Resources Page). In engaging with studio based research we are acknowledging the richness of the process of creation and wonder why by the time the event makes it to the stage this rich life has been lost. How does the richness of the studio experience makes itself available to the audience? Now we are really dealing with important issues about choreographic skill beyond the simplistic 'shaping the message that the choreographer wants to tell'.

The first sessions (by me) will look at the transformation of physical conditions as the root of the 'choreographic'. We will explore the conditions set by the body and how it then operates within these -  both loyal to the implications of the conditions but also eventually seeking their transformation – intentionality in all its dimensions and its link to issues of presence. In these sessions choreography is explored as a process of subject transformation not of material and structural 'editing' and 'fixing'. John- Paul will address metaphorically the 'circus apparatus'. By putting the conditions as given by the 'instrument' John-Paul's conditions are set external to the body  and therefore involve notions of 'risk' as an explicit constant. Of course the within and without share levels of risk and transformation, we are only separating the issues for the purpose of concentration. Michael is the skin that contains both, bringing back the body in, without, inside, outside and considers wider applications of the idea of 'choreography' as one of 'world making'.  Three perspectives to suggest a whole spectrum of probabilities. We then move to collaboration and interdisciplinarity by working intensively on a single mini-process within the Lab on sound/movement/music/compositional/improvisational structures. Significantly, the sessions will be lead by non-dance artists so we get the disciplinary information from source. Interestingly Kiriakos Spirou one of the guests is considering exploring 'what is dance for music'?, an inversion of the common place what is music for dance. The Lab finishes with archiving and documentation, addressing issues of 'capturing' experience to be disseminated, it is not only about 'practicalities' but about issue of witnessing(not reading), and the transformation of a studio process to an autonomous entity that begins to 'disclose itself' within the studio en route to the final presentation. The Lab will conclude with a period of rehearsal time to elaborate independent projects to be presented to the 'public' in April. Importantly I emphasised how I will insist that work is to be shown, not to suddenly change to being product orientated but on the contrary to be able to test this idea of transforming the richness of the studio to an equally rich moment of performance.  This can only be measured by taking 'things out in the open'.

After this (about an hour) each participant presented their interest in joining the Lab. I will not summarise for them, I am hoping that each will take the opportunity to disclose this in the participants' page. However common themes begin to be made manifest:  interest in improvisational systems of performance, of the link between movement and the visual filmic image, about the 'need to talk' and the 'need to dance' in a manner that reminded me of Pina's words “a reality that is only danced is equally untenable as a reality that is only spoken” (Gubernatis 1988). There is interest in understanding the idea of personal narration further (without it being big-brother confessional). There is desire to revisit things previously done. Importantly there is a shared desired to understand dance 'in the circumstances that we are living here now' (Anthii). I stand redeemed, the background discussion of Franco proves itself relevant to this enterprise after all.

From this to the idea of research. I start with the metaphor that I normally use when teaching this in Stockholm, re: search, it is about a search. But a search starts by knowing that it has started (that is we don't stumble into a search, we stumble into things as we search). The search is intentional. It is not just about being open to receive but the harder being prepare to seek even if what will be received (if anything at all) is unconfirmed. I give them the first task (which will probably make it in some shape or form to the participants' page), and ask them to consider a set of questions:  what are you bringing to the processes of the Lab – what elements from the many dimensions of life that determines and shapes the artist  that you are are meant to be brought in to bear upon the process to come?  What is the gap, what you are seeking?.  How does the gap shape the vision?  What you have determines what you don't have...in order to get 'there' I must understand my 'here' my 'now'... I finish with a final thought ..choreographic knowledge is not something that will be given to you as a set of discreet skills or tools, choreographic knowledge is something that you will discover (with others) within.