Did I wake up the city?

How did I activate my enquiry?

Did I wake up the city?

Waking up the Sleepwalking City

My question and my practice.

The work incorporated various forms of improvisational scores, which enabled the dancers to move through the space in response to their sensory relationship the surroundings; inviting the spectator or passers-by to make decisions about their journey, in turn, potentially transforming the space into a place for them as they view the site differently.

The title emerged after reading Walter Benjamin’s (1985) discussions around how the beauty of the past has been reproduced into a commodity within the city, leaving the ‘urbans' (city inhabitants) to live in a dream world. Due misplaced and reproduced desires and dreams through advertising, the ‘urbans’ are unable to create a connection to the city rendering it a space where their decisions and relationships to the surroundings are predetermined and their dreams oppressed.

To me, the concept of the sleepwalk was the idea that the ‘urbans’ are machines that follow a strict status quo, which decides our desires, but also the way we walk around the city, and subsequently, the way we view the city. So, for me this work was about altering this view of the city and an attempt to break away from the status quo, and invite my spectators and passersby to also breakaway. Potentially, turning the space outside Tate Modern, into a place, whereby each person would build an individual connection to, rather seeing the area as a pathway to another space.

I performed the work at 4 times different times:

The evening/weekend rush hour: 18.45 Friday 22^nd June 

The weekend: 14.30 Sunday 24^th June

The weekday night time: 21.30 Monday 25^th June

The weekday morning rush hour: 08.45 Wednesday 27^th June

The reasoning for the various times was that I wanted to present my work to different crowds and also see how the reactions of the passers-by vary at different times of a working week.

Now, how do I measure the successfulness of ‘Waking up the Sleepwalking City’?

How did I want people to ‘wake up’?

The work was an experiment; therefore, I did not want to expect any particular responses. However, the piece invited the audience to take new routes around the space, see structures an architecture differently, notice things in the surrounding skyline they either have never noticed or previously ignored. Therefore, I was more interested to see whether the spectators, and more importantly, the passersby responded to these invites and if so, how they chose to respond... This linked to the performances being at different times within the week, as I was intrigued to see how willing people were to interact when they were going to and from work...

Now measuring this response, I did not want to ask questions as I was aware of the performativity of this, especially if they are approached by the creator of the piece. Therefore, during the pieces I chose to watch, take photos and record conversations during the performance. However, I did also take on board some comments from spectators, colleagues and friends.

The passersby are the people my piece was originally created for, the people that walk past that space everyday and potentially ignore the beauties it has to offer all of one’s senses. Therefore, originally the spectators were more for creating a scene, to lure in the passersby, however, they may also be someone who knows this area very well and is ‘asleep’ to it, or could take this concept to somewhere they do know very well.

What I felt was successful was inviting the public to see or experience things in a new light. Especially the section under Millennium Bridge, which caused a lot of people to stop all around the site to look at it from different views, and the spectators often moved around the site to experience it further.

In conversation a few notes were “it was like an urban climbing frame, it made me wanna be a climber or do some free running” (James Booth, 2012)

“made me look at the metal structure, the colours made it stand out and I wanted to join in” (Phoebe Brown, 2012)

“it was a piece of structure that nobody usually pays attention to, and suddenly it was really a important focal point” (Sinead Krebs)

The moments when the dancers were responsive to something that all the spectators and passersby could hear during the flock, was another successful moment that saw a connection between the dancer and public. Monday night was quiet and therefore sounds were very loud, there were two prominent moments, when the St. Paul’s Cathedral struck 10pm, and when there was a piano being played. The dancers all began to improvise to those sounds, prompting the spectators and passersby to stop, laugh and see this connection to sound.

The flocking itself took on different terrains as the dancers moved through the space, and the spectators mostly, but also the passersby followed, taking individual angles on the event, being an individual within a collective.

The moment when the dancers guided the spectators to the bridge was another successful moment as they interrupted their movements and invited them to look at specific sights, it was obvious but really made people direct their gaze across something new to them. One spectator swung on a bollard after a dancer did, which showed they took the invite to experience things differently:

The moments of pause worked well to invite the spectator to have a moment to see that area in a new light.

The moments on the bench, which forced the sitting people to become part of the piece, was really exciting, as the spectators began to see that bench as something different, and experience it as something exciting.

However, there was still a mentality for the spectators to group together around the dancers, so when they separated and took an individual root, I saw a moment of understanding from them.
There were also people who completely ignored the dancers to continue on their everyday, cycling past or not even turning a head, what would I have to do to wake them up?
I felt that the moment where the dancers interacted with the public sparked a connection between them, creating an interruption in their day or their usual way of viewing. Otherwise, there were parts that were alienating and personal for the dancers, leaving the spectators to just watch them.

Questions that have arisen just from writing this:

Would longer stillness have given the spectators more of a chance to survey the area?

Are people still experiencing the view and senses differently during a performance?

Are people likely to ignore the piece because art is expected around the Tate?

However, there was a distinction between each day, showing a very different willingness of passersby on Sunday than on Wednesday morning. So, possibly, people are tired and do not want to wake up, just to have to go sit in an office all day....

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

There was also a desire to capture the performance through a camera, many people stopping only to take a picture, many people following the piece behind the lens of a camera. Is this something that cannot be ignored? Should I take this a compliment that people want to archive my performance as part of their day? Or should I take this as a failure as people did not experience the piece through their body but through a camera?

So I seem to have created more questions than answers, however, what I have is a lot of data, a lot of information to help me understand what happened outside the Tate Modern during 22-27^th June 2012.

M.J.B

The practice within the practice...

I began to question the practice behind my work back in May when I discussed whether the piece would be more successful, in regards to my area of enquiry, as improvisation or choreography.

I felt it was important to include with the motifs that the dancer’s and I created along the way, as it was our trace to that space, which turned it into a place for us. However, in regards to the question of ‘Waking up the Sleepwalking City’, I felt improvisation was important as I needed the dancers to be continually responsive to the surroundings to present an ‘awake’ attitude to the city.

As the rehearsals progressed, I began to merge the two concepts of improvisation and choreography together within a structured score. I entwined moments of open scores and closed scores, alongside choreography and speech. I will run you through the piece using pictures to show how each section was included in this.

The beginning section, where two dancers were on the bridge and two dancers with the spectators outside the TATE, was quite an open score: the dancers were told 5 minutes before the piece an object in the surroundings which they all had to improvise in response to and during that they had to find 4 moments of pause:

T

The section following, with two dancers using script on the bench, was a closed improvisation, as the script was set and they were using gestural movement to accompany that. However, the two dancers that sat at the opposite side of the bench, where using exaggerated gestural movements in response to the spoken answers, and this was slightly more open:

The dancers then guided the spectators towards the bridge, this was an open score, as their direction was set, but they were improvising with the spectators, pointing and inviting them to look around the site.

The bridge section was set; this is for safety reasons and possible weather restrictions. However, before it was set, as discussed in my post “The bustling Body in the City” (Monday 11th June), the piece was created out of a childlike excitement to climb and explore.

For the flocking, the route in which they travelled round the space was the only part that was set, whereby they had to find a moment of stillness in 4 different locations.

For the choreographed section which followed, the dancers picked a different spot for each performance, and performed the sequence; however, they chose their own dynamics and spacing, in order to accompany their responses to the environment.

The section which included the dancers being attached at the arm, was quite an open score, they had been given different answers to the questionnaires, and learnt the responses, and this section was about them having a task, Alice – to get Chloe to stop, and Chloe - to get Alice to move, and they could use any of their learnt script and any movement to do so.

The final choreography was set, however, it was never taught to counts, but rather they were working as a group and as individuals to accompany each other, but also change the dynamics as individuals:

The choreographed sequence made me question the use of traces in the work. Originally, they were used to show the dancers’ connection in that place through a process of movement. However, then who is the piece for? The spectators potentially would just see choreography...

It led me to think whether instead of creating a piece that wakes up the passersby, have I, instead created an improvisational way of working in different sites, which invites the dancer to open up their movement possibilities? The process for me was very rigorous, as each rehearsal was outside, which saw a clear development in each dancer from each of them using their technique training to respond to the surroundings, to them using their bodies to explore differing and more interesting movement opportunities...

However, I think there were successful moments in the piece, which did invite the spectator/passersby to become more awake. Therefore, could that be an outcome of the dancers’ movements being more open and less insular? Could the piece have been an exercise for the dancer which as an result connected with the public?

Something I understood from my preliminary project on this topic, performed on London Bridge in March, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/77909775@N02/sets/72157629211328350/) was that many of the passersby found the flocking very alienating. Therefore, I have been working to make sure the dancers could invite and set up a dialogue with the passersby, in order to invite them to experience their surroundings, which did become successful at certain points (which I will go on to discuss in my next blog).

For me, as a practitioner within the practice, I didn’t choreograph a piece of work and teach it to a group of dancers, I facilitated and taught improvisational techniques in order to further a dancer’s movement potential. So, the practice was movement, using improvisation devices. The practitioner: I developed from experimenting to creating a approach of working with improvisation and site.

Working with voice and character

A part of the work included some verbatim I’d taken from a questionnaire I’d sent out a few months ago with the following questions:

What did you think about today on your way to work?

What do you look at when travelling to and from work?

What do you hear or listen to when on your way to work?

What do you think about the sounds of London?

How would you describe London to you, for example, is it your home/working place/where you live?

How often do you stop when travelling around London?

I sent the questionnaire round to people, who worked 9-5, it was important to me that I received answers from the people who would make up a majority of the passersby during my piece. I speak about Waking up the Sleepwalking City, but to do so, I need to understand the politics on the body. This is something I’ve spoken about in my previous blogs, every day we walk along socially constructed routes via socially constructed ways of walking which affect what we see, creating this herd like nature of people in the city. My work is to invite people to resist the status quo which renders us asleep, but instead act out our desires, and be an individual within the collective, even if it is momentarily.

So to understand the asleep city, I sent round the questionnaire, asking about the use of sight and sounds in the everyday, to see how narrowed the everyday city inhabitant’s relationship is to the city due to these restrictions put onto our bodies. Many answers for the first question “What did you think about today on your way to work?” revolved around work, which is something inevitable. Everyone has to go to work to earn a wage, to live, which is the reason behind the nature of the ‘sleepwalk’; it is not necessarily a choice, but a consequence of this Capitalist lifestyle. I need to be aware of this, and how this affects the everyday body and its relationship to the surroundings. I want to speak to these people, take their words and use them in a way that creates a dialogue with the asleep, inviting them to momentarily relate to the surroundings, not as a hindrance, but rather as a way to brighten their day, become that individual, rather than another sheep in the herd.

The answers for “What do you look at when travelling to and from work?” were mainly directed at people and roads, and sights that were on the same level as one’s eyes, rather than directed towards the sky or ground. However, there were answers that related to nature and ‘lingering’ on sights, however, this was often then contrasted by the fact that the people did so through the lens of a camera. Unlike my dancers, who have learnt how they see, and really been able to pick parts of the landscape to connect to. The sounds of London were described as ‘noisy’, used as a derogatory word, many people suggesting they cover it up with their own music. I was very interested to see how people related to London, as a home or as a place of work, there was quite an equal divide between people who saw it was a home and people who saw it as a place they live/for work. For me, this shows the extent of the sleepwalking city, and how much work has drowned ones desires into a machine for work. The answers to “How often do you stop when travelling around London?” reiterated this, as many people stated how they only stopped when they were forced to, and similar to the sights, when they did stop, it was through the lens of a camera in order to take a photo.

I divided the answers into ‘Awake’ and ‘Asleep’ answers, as I wanted to contrast the responses and invite the spectator/passersby to relate to the answers, as well as seeing the other point of view, possibly to see what they are missing. I don’t think people are metaphorically asleep because they choose to be, but instead, we all a mixture of the two, but in most circumstances the ‘asleep’ has proceeded due to the power of rules in our society to act a certain way.

I created two characters which spoke the verbatim, Alice, took on the ‘awake’ responses and Chloe assumed the “asleep” answers. This meant that Alice’s answers included connections to the city, via stopping, looking and enjoying what London has to offer, and Chloe’s character used the questionnaire responses that were based around work and rushing.

We started off by experimenting with the script abstracted and in sentences, in order to create a relationship between the two characters and their scripts. We improvised with moving in the corresponding ways. So, Alice, who took on the ‘awake’ responses, was experimenting with contrasting pedestrian movements and eye lines whilst saying the words. Whereas, Chloe, explored with dissecting and understanding pedestrian movement whilst saying her words; this is when the contrast really came out of the words. Chloe began to speed up a lot of her words, and used breath a lot, and Alice was really slow and sweetly spoken.

I then minimised this, so they just saw and responded with script to me asking them the questionnaire? They then took all this energy and understanding from experimenting into smaller gestures and becoming a slightly exaggerated version of that character, awake or asleep. For the piece, I took away me asking the questions, but instead they looked at the passersby/spectators and responded to them as if they were asking them a question, in order to really build a connection between the performers and watchers.

The words were revisited later on in the piece with the two dancers being attached and conversing with each other, this was to represent one person but the direct pull between two states of being, one wanting to stop and appreciate, and the other in a rush. This became the hardest to accomplish, because the dancers were working with each other rather than against, it became exciting when they were really pulling from each other and creating images that saw this passion.

The voice outside became problematic; because I was not working with people who were vocally trained or actors it meant that their voices often became lost under the hustle of London, rather than being an accompaniment. We worked with Experience Bryon who did a workshop around her techniques using the 3-part breath; this enables one to take the voice along the top of the mouth to gain a better tone. Using the phrase ‘project’ lead to Alice and Chloe shouting which meant there voices didn’t carry and the words sounded angry, however what the Bryon’s vocal technique did was to carry their voices into the space. It was a bit too late on in the process for them to become experts with Bryon’s tone technique, however what we all took away was the 3-part breath which was really useful as it also helped calm them before they spoke and gave them a longer breath, meaning that they didn’t rush their words.

 

M.J.B

Dancing in the Rain: The Duet.

So, I wrote a post about how we’ve had to do a few rehearsals in the rain, however, in fear of jinxing rain for the performance I never published it. So, I’ve decided to edit it and post it, now the performances are over and there was no rain.

Due to the British summer including rain and my decision to do ALL rehearsals outside we ran into a few rainy rehearsals. Over the jubilee weekend, we had to move a rehearsal to Primrose Hill, and this was a perfect opportunity to re-unite the dancers with a clear contrast of nature and the industrial as the hill is surrounded by roads and set on a backdrop of the city sky rises.

What I have experienced previously in myself and also in my dancers (a few months ago), is that when we improvise in the rain, the dancing becomes insular and stuck within a comfort zone.

Here the dancers were using contact to experiment with
the terrain by using weight, touch and direction.

 However, we continued working with motif development and the dancers were responding to the weather, as a sound, feeling and with sight via the landscape, which saw a development in their motifs, which became really responsive. They were pushing their bodies to really understand how they wanted to use movement to relate to the rain, and rather than going into their comfort zones, I saw them really engaging with the change of the environment. The movements for sight, sound and feelings would be completely different, which saw a step away from a particular technique, and instead they were using the bodies to create a dialogue with the surroundings.  This is a big change from when we had encountered rain before, whereby they would become rather self-indulgent with their movements, reverting back to using their dance training and creating movement that was a dance style rather than a response.

We starting working with duets in the rain, this was the next the steps, as not only did the dancers have to be responsive to the surroundings; they had to also be aware of the other dancer. This is simpler when there are obvious things to respond to, so for example if there is a sudden loud noise, both dancers will hear that and start moving in reaction to that sound, which they had started already doing when flocking as a group.

Here the dancers were using touch to
experiment with the trees buy in an
individual way.

We started off by just experimenting with different ways of improvising as a duet, using contact, levels, repetition, and working by imitating each other and in contrast to each other, this then created an understanding of how each other moves. I found they were still being responsive to their senses, however, sometimes this got lost when they were watching the other dancer intently. The next level came when I asked them to respond as an individual and as a duet, so they started off with contact improvisation and sight, where one dancer would direct their eye towards something and together they would respond to that sight. This worked really well, as the dancers’ eyes were open and engaged, which meant the spectator could also take notice of their direction.

Working with ideas of Lisa Nelson, I introduced Tuning Scores to add another dimension to how a duet could work. During the Tuning Scores, one of the rules includes one of the dancers (A) improvising with an object and the other dancer (B) watching and when the leader calls PAUSE, B moves dancer A in order to create a new relationship with that object; it could include changing the level, or location of the dancer or the dynamic in which s/he is moving.

This really worked as the dancers began to watch each other and see how that could adapt their relationship to an object or sense. This really developed the group flocking; as the gelled more as a group the flock was really responsive and alert. The group would be constantly changing as they would respond as a group to loud noises or a change in terrain (e.g when they would move from gravel to grass), but then they would also bounce off of each other’s movements. This meant the audience were seeing an awake group of dancers constantly responding to different things with different changes in their bodies. With the imrpovisation came the openness of the dancers to the surroundings and each other, as they were being an individual within a group ensemble, hopefully inviting the spectators and passersby to do so too....... 

I was confident that the piece wouldn't see the dancing drowned by the rain, but they would use that as another aspect to dance with.