quodlibet

post-structuralist dance

doug fox asked me for examples of post-structuralist dance. but few artists make post-structuralist work; contemporary practice is usually postmodern, with features of post-structuralism.

instead of video, i’ll give a basic overview of post-structuralist trends. understand the principles, and you can observe/discover examples for yourself. listen to what artists say about their process/work, and how they want you to engage with it.

structuralism

in structuralism, meaning is contained within the practice/object. as such it holds a fundamental truth for all readers. a detailed and isolated observation of the object, will lead to comprehension of meaning. the creator of an object directly authors its meaning.

post-structuralism

in post-structuralism meanings are found by the reader, and outside the practice/object. links a reader makes between objects, result in subjective shifting ‘truths’. the social, cultural, historical contexts of the reader, will affect the meanings and ‘truths’ they find. in the absence of an absolute position, readings can be self contradictory.

the creator of an object, looses total ‘authorship’ but not relevance. whilst they do not write the ‘true meaning’, their personal contexts have affected the creation of the object. examining the various facets of an ‘artists’ life leads us to more readings and ‘truths’.

artist (performer) audience

post-structuralism remind the artist that they are not the only location of meaning. both audience and performer actively interpret and create meanings. every individual will find something different in the work. artists exploit this situation to avoid (over) explaining their work.

the de-centering of meaning/truth is not restricted to personal contexts. physical contexts also lead to divergent meanings. e.g., being able to perform ballet vocabulary will affect your reading of a ballet. even location has an impact; seeing a work at ‘eye level’ you may not notice the patterns a ‘birds-eye view’ gives. each view, and your perception of other audience members, will result in different readings.

alongside these concerns, artists must reconsider how they make objects. in the absence of a universal ‘truth’, each work much be approached uniquely. the artist strive to understand the ‘self’ and how it affects their reading/writing of objects.

central to this understanding of ‘self’ is a deconstructive and phenomenological approach. the artist ‘deconstructs’ objects and their links (intertexts) to observe how they experience them (the phenomena of being). this leads to a multitude of interrelated meanings and ‘truths’. the artist will then synthesize their ‘truth’/meaning/phenomena links into a new collection of objects (the work). then they helps the performer(s) find their own ‘self’, meanings and ‘truths’ within the work.

artists ‘authors’ the score/structure, performers ‘author’ their performance, audiences ‘author’ their own meanings from the performance and structure.

locating contexts

the rejection of ‘traditional’ methods/forms is postmodernist, rather than post-structuralist. for the post-moderns, all methods are of equal value and be exploited. for the post-structuralist, personal experience/context is more important than method/form.

divergent use of other disciplines terminology (as a form of metalanguage), is post-structuralist. the intention is to (re)claim new readings/’truths’ from structuralist knowledge, and build new intertexts.

deconstruction for critique (taking apart to find new readings) is different to compositional deconstruction (taking apart to reorder), and deconstructivist choreography (disrupting the form/structure but retaining function).

in dance theory, post-structuralism is used to re-read/re-write critical perspectives. cultural, historical, social, political and gender narratives, have been foregrounded to offer alternative ‘truths’. however, this type of study is also dependent on postmodern theory and concepts.

further reading

Belsey, C., (2002). Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction.
Burt, R., (2007). The Male Dancer:Bodies, Spectacle, Sexualities [2nd Edition].
Lepecki, A., (2006). Exhausting Dance: Performance and the Politics of Movement.
Martusewicz, R., (2001). Seeking Passage: Post-structuralism, Pedagogy, Ethics.
Midgelow, L., (2008) Reworking the Ballet: Counter-Narratives and Alternative Bodies.

comments

transmission

audiences are not passive. an experienced performer will acknowledge (in some manner) the audience. therefore, most performances are interactive. this (in very general terms) is what post-structuralism and intertextuality teach us.

just ‘turning up’ means you contribute to the performance. that’s not to say your contribution is significant. it simply means that you are never a passive, detached, or direct recipient of a works meaning/content. the location of your seat affects your view, and within that visual field your eye wanders. there is no ‘single’ audience perspective.

an artist/choreograper (author) may use audience actions to trigger pre-determined responses. this gives the impression of increased interactivity, but only the ‘right’ cues will be have an effect. the cues can be general (mirror movement) or specific (do x when you see y), but the structure (score, choreography) is already in place.

say we have a dance work in which the audience vote via text for what happen next. after a section of dancing the audience are given 3 options for what happens next. if this occurs five times the total number of possible sequences is 243 (3^5).

if the audience can select the order of a set (n) of sequences (without repetition), then the total number of permutations is n!. e.g. if a dance have five sections, there are 120 permutations (5!).

in both cases, the audience is responding to the structure. this is no more interactive than the audience of a ‘set’ work, or the call and response in a pantomime. (oh no it isn’t, oh yes it is …).

interaction is smoke and mirrors engagement. you (subserviently) learn the structure of participation or/and are blind to effect of your actions. the allure of the word leads to you believe you are ‘empowered’. the audience is always in a position on power, but all too often they (willingly) give it up.

ever tried to leave, or get on the ‘stage’ in a work that attempts to remove the barrier between audience and performer. your freedom to interact/engage is limited, and usually under the guise of ‘heath and safety’.

all interactions follow rules/structures; they can be predefined, or emerge over time. every performance setting has rules, and few people disrupt/challenge them.

comments

dismayed of dulwich

dear dance company/choreographer

i find your dvd’s a little lacking, the ‘special features’ are especially disappointing. for example, where is the choreographers/dancers/dramaturges commentary so i can ‘watch with them’?

how about real rehearsal/development footage that shows your process. or at least teach the cast/crew to act more convincingly. please can we have a proper trailer, with non patronizing voiceovers and fewer jump-cuts.

once you have fed us the marketing pitch (trailer), how about an 8 min excerpt without edits or voiceover. the excerpt should also be available online (for free), and at ‘high’ quality (e.g. vimeo).

make the special features more engaging, share the process of making costumes, set, lighting (etc.). watch some mainstream dvd’s for ‘ideas’, and to see ‘what works’. dance bloopers belong on you’ve been framed.

adding educational content to the dvd? don’t forget undergraduate dance students need resources. make sure there is a transcript of any voiceovers/commentaries.

finally, please make the dvd easy to buy (e.g. performance, amazon, specialist retailer) and reasonably priced.

thank you

comments

how do you get to carnegie hall

i first saw «shute» (1972) when leaning tuning scores with lisa nelson. i practice ‘hurtling’ bodies in class; with mats at first, and then without. my contact improvisation practice/training is a little ‘old school’.

the idea is to discover what is simplest to do [paxton]

i have built my own practice on the principles in this video. learning to deal with (un/expected) contact, and utilizing physics (momentum, alignment).

at ci36 steve paxton talked about «magnesium» (1972) the first contact improvisation work. steve Paxton at ci36 discussing «magnesium».

contact improvisation treats space as spherically; so you do not have the horzontal with sky above and floor below. […] from a visual point of view everything is moving around you. [paxton]

again, lots of resonance with my practice and teaching. especially with regards to visual perception. atleast half of my introductory lessons deal with perceptual theory (concepts) and their relationship to practice.

finally, video of a 1983 contact improvisation performance at st marks church: davd appel, robin feld, steve paxton, alan ptashek, peter ryan, kirstie simson and nancy stark smith are performing.

you can buy a copy of «shute», and other seminal ci videos at videoda

comments

open the bruise up

last week i saw a ‘choreography’ that seemed to be a collection of references. between a setting-up, and putting-away, there was a period of stillness/silence. onstage was:

• a man sitting in a chair (motionless)
• a pair of red ladies heeled shoes (on floor)
• two photographs of a piano in a field (left and right of man)

the programme notes referred to ‘challenging audience/performer expectations’, and john cage. yes, it was another «4’33”» (1960) derivative work.

had the work offered something ‘different’ i might have been interested. at best it was a collection of other peoples ideas, without referencing (and knowledge?). it also required a breadth of experience to ‘interpret’. most of the audience lacked this, they politely/passively watched until the end.

using the piano images alongside the 4’33” duration was redundant and flawed. as images they are unable to ‘play’. the silence (in this case) does not need an imagined instrument.

the keyboard could be seen in the piano images: when performing «4’33”» on piano, the keyboard should be covered by the lid. for example see david tudor playing «4’33”» (1952). a ‘possibility’ of touching the keys indicates ‘waiting to start’, rather than an ‘inability’ to play. i doubt this was an intentional shift.

matching the musical ideas of ‘no silence’, and ‘silence as separation’ to dance is common. many choreographers have made «4’33”» sitting/standing stillness works. in 2007/8 tacita dean filmed a version with merce cunningham called «merce cunningham performs stillness (in three movements) to john cage’s composition 4’33” with trevor carlson, new york city, 28 april 2007»

the red shoes were a slight departure, but equally redundant. there is a link to «the red shoes» (1948) a ‘dance film’ staring moira shearer. in the story a spotlight is used to recall (highlight the absence) of a recently deceased dancer. the ballet is performed without the soloist, and the ‘audience’ constructs the performance from their memories.

the shoes may also signify ‘traveling without moving’ (by imagination) via «the wizard of oz» (1939) film. if you consider «return to oz» (1985) to be canon (it’s not), the shoes also represent a score (of silence/stillness). they frame the space your imagination will inhabit.

but i’m (over)reading into the performance. the work consisted of found ideas, but not found ‘art’. if this were student work i would ask about the process … ‘what led to the product?’. the response might lead me to re-evaulte my interpretation; for better or worse. as audience, and not teacher, i can walk away.

explaining your product/process can be galling to students and artists. but if you really believe you are ‘challenging, pushing, questioning’ (etc.) be prepared to bring your audience with you.

students/artists should try and see how their work is received. it’s not always an issue of educating the reader. sometimes a re-write is in order. it may seem like you put your heart into a work; but effort does not ensure quality.

‘artistic’ wounds rarely bleed (unless you are chris burden). and audiences can suffer too.

comments

horology

i’ve spent a few weeks listening to «different trains» (1988) and «vermont counterpoint» (1982). when developing a work i take my time over the ‘music’ and secure the score (notation) when possible. today i rejected both options.

in contemporary dance, steve reich works imply anne teresa de keersmaeker (rosas) or lazy/uninspired choreographers. so why did i consider the scores in the first place? i like the music.

i could talk at length about the notion of ‘resonance’ found in de keersmaeker’s and reich’s compositions. another time perhaps, so a video of “come out” from «fase, four movements to the music of steve reich» (1982).

my other option was a vocal score created specifically for the work. i have a source text/s (~200 email subject lines), but need to pass them on for ‘treatment’. as the score is for an improvisation i want to be able to ‘find things’ in it, not see my composition. there is also my desire for ‘fit and finish’; too many d.i.y ‘soundscapes’ sound (unintentionally) naff.

with improvisation i look for music i can (learn to) work with, rather than a conceptual ‘link’. concepts, composition, links (etc.) emerge in the making, not the planning (this is my current working method).

comments