On the subject of the "expanded" and "cooping" but less to do with
collaborative or participatory art at this stage, I wanted to share my own
work with wearables as movement initiators for performers. I do hope this
is relevant.
Expanded choreography (expanded cinema, expanded sculpture), expanded
design… I come from a design background, co-creating with artists from
other disciplines (dance, performance, film, sound art, media arts etc.)
within contemporary dance and interactive performance contexts. In the work
I do, design co-opts to create a form of expanded choreography. I could
also argue that choreography and movement co-opt to create an expanded from
of design due to the reciprocal nature of things. When design strategies
are applied and “wearability” is involved i.e. wearable technology,
wearable scenographic design, costume etc., (where interactive potentials,
touch and palpable presence exert their influences on the body) and are
present from the outset of the performance-making process, movement can
emerge as a result of “wearing” and “wearable” stimulus, and as a result,
wearing becomes a method for performance-making. Weight, tactility,
materiality, form, aesthetics and so on act on the body sensorily– and
through an evolutionary process movement and/or gesture is enabled to flow
in certain ways through the things that touch, liberate or restrict the
body in motion.
I also work with sounding garments and wearables where sound is activated
through movement and gesture thus appealing additionally to the aurality of
the performer-wearer. New sonic dimensions are brought into play here for
the dance/performance offering further movement stimulus.
This expanded approach offers movement and choreography new ways to emerge
through a relocation of emphasis to the body of the performer (away from
audience) concentrating first and foremost on this prior to any
participatory element for the audience. I do believe however that through
augmenting the performing body physically and experientially in a
one-on-one interrelationality of body and things/object a certain expansion
of the performer’s reach into the space is afforded which ultimately might
touch the audience members differently.
I am finding the discussion very stimulating, thank you.
Michèle
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alexandre Achour <a.achour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yes you are right the term "artificial hells" comes from André Breton, and
here is a short article on participation which is extremely interesting to
read, one of the most exciting texts that I read on participation actually,
it’s also from Claire Bishop, but she has more of an overview on
participation to ask the question where are we now? (which is actually the
title of the essay) : http://dieklaumichshow.org/pdfs/Bishop.pdf
Ana Vujanovic also has very interesting texts, not directly about
participation but about politics in art and art in politics : Vita
Performactiva
http://www.anavujanovic.info/#!/2012/01/vita-performactiva-on-the-stage-of-neoliberal-capitalist-democratic-society/
There is also a book by Ana Vujanovic and Bojana Cvejic , public sphere by
performance, which also talks a lot about the expanded field of
choreography and how to understand it nowadays in our scene.
I am glad that you found the concept of our performance interesting, I
think that our performance creates conditions in which audience have no
choice but to imagine the stories, in this way it is quite intrusive, but I
also think that any kind of performance participatory or not will always
think of the experience of its audience. Some would then talk about
manipulation, but then we might arrive to a dead end with this thought,
concluding that all performances are manipulative, when in fact it just is
the nature of performing arts to do work to be experienced live, and
therefore to set the best conditions for this experience. I don’t know how
you discussed in your previous conversations "democratic modes of
participation" and in relation to which works or contexts, but in the
example that I studied in the research, when dealing with democracy it
always is addressing a very specific aspect, I am thinking for example :
Democracy in America by Annie Dorsen, where she had people buying elements
of the performance before hand online, as a way to address capital in
seemingly democratic procedures.
On trial together by Sasa Asentic and Ana Vujanovic, where they wanted to
create conditions for direct democracy, I explain it in a very simple way,
but this performance is great : I recommend to watch the link :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgRzn88lxSM&feature=youtu.be
City Council Meeting by Aaron Landsman, where he reproduced a city council
meeting based on real scripts from real city council meetings, and audience
would choose the role they want to play, and read / improvise the scripts.
I understand that when you say « democratic modes of participation », you
don’t talk about a performance, which content wise addresses democracy, but
it has to do with the social and political frame that the performance
creates for its audience, regardless of the content. I would be interested
Johannes to read more of your thoughts about this and what works do you
have in mind when you say this?
Best,
Alexandre
Le 10 avr. 2015 à 16:05, Johannes Birringer <
Johannes.Birringer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Alexandre's most stimulating post raises a number of pertinent issues we
could discuss here, and I invite everyone warmly to respond, even if only
briefly.
- First, yes, thank you for mentioning Claire Bishop's book on
"Artificial Hells" - any thoughts by those you have looked at current
theores of "relational art" or participatory performance? delegated
performance, "outsourced authenticity? "Bürgertheater"?
I think the book's width & depth, historically and conceptually, is
rich; I liked reading about Russian proletarian mass performances
(Proletkult), factory agit-prop, and so on, compared to dada, shock and
insult tactics; happenings, or thinkings wth the body ((c.f Simone Forti
-- body-object improvisations, shown recently at a great exhibit in
Salzburg), etc. and the various western avant-gardes you also mention
(well, Soviet apt-art is another matter, back in the 1980s, clandestine
participation deserves more debate of course, as it implies a more rigid
state controlled/dictatorial "art" system or culture system
requiring/twisting other horizons of expectation, unlike the neoliberal
affluent first world capitalist art market where now museums can play at
performativities and invite the Tino Sehgals to hire, persuade and delegate
their "interpreters" to participate with us)..... But I looked and looked,
and did not find an explanation for what these "artifical hells" are?
Then I noted a citation from André Breton, where the term is from, where
Breton speaks of going beyond dada trying to scandalize the audience.
"Scandal," he says, " for all its force...would be insufficient to elicit
the delight that one might expect from an artificial hell" [p. 70] ??
-- your piece about the "ghost" of participation -- ghost stories --
seems a brilliant idea, and of course I thought of Nilüfer's commentaries
here, about Jeannette's working through her memory of apartheid (and her
first dancefilm amnd her nudity getting forbidden), about the asymmetries
mentioned here earlier, in the ostensibly "democratic" mode of
audience-participatory engagement, community activism, Schlingensief-like
provocations (the enlisting, in the so-called citizen theatre, of real
workers, refugees, illegal immigrants, rape victims, social
outcasts....)....
-- you then speak of: >>Choreography is understood both in our performance
and in the performances that inspired the stories in terms of body images,
behaviour of the audience, and relations between human beings as social
subjects. In the stories inevitably comes forth the illusory, utopian and
destructive character of participation.>>
yes, this was one of my fearful doubts, about the 'democratic' principle
of participation, namely that the " illusory, utopian and destructive
character of participation" breaks through; and then what do we make of our
efforts to prepare this or that immersive and engaging and multisensorial
and cognitively challenging atmosphere (here I want to come back later to
the way in my lab group's work we are exploring architectural and wearable
ideas of what we call "kimosphere"- asking whether a space can be shared,
an environment listened to without the anthropocenic tendency to make it
succumb to be con-sumed)? when does participation become a genre, or
affirmative, or indeed destructive? when is design coopting? what/who is
being aligned?
-- and what are newly evolving understandings of "choreography" --- I
believe both Jeannette and Alexandre, but also others here -- Sandra please
tell us more about your dramaturgies -- have already made strides
towards a very expanded field of choreography, would you agree? (and
please remember expanded cinema, and expanded sculpture].
regards
Johannes Birringer
________________________________________
[Alexandre Achour schreibt]
There are many different topics in your last email that are for me
interesting to discuss, you asked me about examples of participatory
practices that were radical and subversive, I can for sure talk to you
about the examples that we used for our own performance « Speaking about
the ghost », but I’m also working on a documentation of the research that
we made in order to share it, so I will make sure to share it on this
platform as soon as I am done. In any cases, my recommendation is the book
« Artificial hell » by Claire Bishop.
The other question that I also find interesting to discuss is how to
understand those terms « radical » and « subversive ».
And lastly the notion of actualization also came up in your email
Johannes, which was also part of our own research process, can those past
participatory performances be still subversive nowadays? Do they still have
the same potential to move people?
