The presentation of my work became a question mark...?...
I was thinking of different parts to base the choreography
on, and then I questioned why I would use choreography? My work is based on
being responsive to the environment in that moment, and choreography would not
only be MY representation of the environment, it would restrict a connection to
the surroundings for my dancers.
As discussed previously in “Senses on Site”, I become aware
of how each dancer has an individual relationship to their senses, but how
could I present this through my own choreography - as it would be stuck in my
own relationship to the surrounding?
On the other hand, the motifs that my dancers have created
around London and on the present site, have been a trace of that space
transforming into a place.
This concept of trace has been something that I keep returning
back to. Derrida discusses how each present moment is a
trace of the past and the future, a kind of continuing stand of changes. For
us, not only have we rehearsed at different times of day we have done so in
differing weathers, really pushing our motif development.
Also, during a psychogeographic workshop with Laura Oldfield
Ford (http://lauraoldfieldford.blogspot.co.uk/)
around London, she discussed how each area is embedded with traces of what was.
Therefore, my work is a trace of what was the progression of their
relationship to that space, and other spaces around London...
These motifs became essential to the work, as I was edging towards the idea of spaces into places more and more. However, I also need the piece
to be very open to interpretation and adjustment by the dancers, because I can’t
expect them to wake up the passersby and spectators if they are just performing
movement... However, this piece of choreography will be embedded in their
bodies and allow them to stop/adapt moments on the spot, allowing the
spectators/passerby to see them being an individual within a collective – which
is what I am inviting watchers to do!
As I played with flocking and improvisations in my workshops,
I could see stunning moments of perceptual awareness, where the dancers were
engaged with each other and the surroundings as they experimented with working
close together and far away in fast moment to moment decisions. This is
discussed by Di Benedetto in relation to
contact improvisation; how proximities can push the dancers relationship to
their senses: “The form depends on communication between dancers through the
sense of tough and weight. Dancers use sight peripherally, not in eye contact”
(Di Benedetto, 2010: 163). In turn, this really invited me as a watcher, and
hopefully the spectators, to want to connect with the dancers but also
what they were responding to. ..
For me, I think the idea of an improvised piece was unpredictable
and unstable, which scared me, however, as I saw how organic and responsive
their movement was, I started to realise that unstable was what I needed to
wake people up!
The motif development has been an improvised way of devising
choreography, which has been successful so far, therefore, I will be working
with creating a score that allows individuality, and reconstructs a view of the city, by the tools provided by dance:
levels, pause, speed, dynamic…
Di Benedetto, S (2010) The Provocation of the Senses in
Contemporary Theatre. Abingdon: Routledge
No comments:
Post a Comment