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.
blog comments powered by Disqus