There is now a long history of dancers being guided into using their “self” as the principle creative tool in devising processes. In this case we are principally asked to question reality, to expose ourselves to a void of what is beyond. Going there is a familiar feeling to most improvisers, going beyond there is perhaps more interesting if one has been there regularly over a few decades. It is a great challenge though, as in a ways it is asking to take you to a place that you have little idea of how to get to and maybe you won’t recognise it once you have gotten there or even after having returned/or found yourself in a new beyond. A dancer’s body is directly connected to their employability which lends the occupation a natural tendency towards egocentricity, any exploration that takes the dancer beyond themselves is potentially helpful in restructuring the inward egocentric gravity, then again perhaps the outward looking, grasping beyond could just be an expansion of psychological territory and exaggerate any already grand delusions!
Memory as a constituting of identity
Memory of memories- where does my memory end and turn into imagination or fabrication
My brain is finecombing its input and storage. I am using the output by synching it into perceptible and unperceptible movement.
This process takes my brain to another level of functioning. I do not really notice this as I am working but can reconstruct it from remembered thought patterns. Noticing things happening which would elicit or need to elicit a certain response, or a thought process into activity but due to this kind of dream state I do not have my usual tools at my disposal during these sessions.
After each rendering of the work, memories, reconstructions, debris of past renderings stream through me, emerging through the mesh, the porous gates of my cognitive brain.
The tools to embark upon this practice are in the structure, it calls upon previous experiences and allows me to put this into movement.
The difficulty comes when I have to decide how to interact with others because then I only have my experience to call on as each of the others have too.
Read more »
I feel younger; I used to be what I am now.
I am finding myself passing by, in time, thinking of being in. Being in. Seeing myself taking place. I’m taking place.
Is your art a place? The doing opens a room, emotions poor in. Intense feelings of sorrow, loss, confusion. The movements are loaded, fragile, uncertain, empowered.
Am I personal?
Efva spoke about her different roles in life and how places by convention inherently limits behavior, movement, communication, expression, feelings. Roles represented by three spheres: one public, one private and one for the Arts — a sort of unregulated space where borders can be tested and moved.
We are hitting each other. Not playing hitting, but hitting for real. A revolting feeling. I do not want to do this to that other body. Would it be up to me we could speak about it, like “civilized” people. I’m gradually trespassing a physical limit within. Getting used to the impact and to the response. A new agreement is shaping between us. I can take it. Hit me, but be prepared because I am going to hit you back.
What is respectful: To deny violent physical infliction as expression? Or fighting back?
It becomes clear how also this space of the Arts is fully conventionalized by ideologies, a way of being together as well as in relation to the world beyond the studio. Through the work with the three choreographers so far, each method and choreographic system has also included and enabled different levels of meeting – with our selves, one another and the audience. With Efva we have a triangular relationship to each other. Embodying given material and rhythm experiences are revealed on the floor, up front and besides each other. We meet inside the choreography as it is being made.
Avoid the neutral attitude. Be alive within.
Dance education is full of contradictions, between an erasing ideal form and discipline – and at the same time absolute euphoria of physically trespassing ones own limitations. And the whole potential of working with the body, the human being.
“Try to push the wall away.”
The big beautiful back-wall. Some thick iron screws are sticking out approximately three meters high. There used to be a “shelf” from where one could climb up and watch. Even higher up on the walls, close to the ceiling and around the room are iron loops. They were used for climbing with harnesses. Half way up the wall a gray line of concrete leaves the trace of what used to be a floor. Weld was divided in a basement and a ground floor. In the basement, left stage side, an artist was painting. On the floor above a dance studio. It was a terrible studio with low ceiling that did not allow for high jumping.
Meeting Efva, history opens up behind me.
Read more »
We are engaged in a practice of looking at our own output and then by writing about it finding a new entrance or a different way of perceiving what we have done. Rather then react to that disecting by developing the material and changing it, we turn it over, around and pull it inside out in our thoughts and practice. Almost as though the work is being psycho-analysed. What did it do? What did it feel like? How did it react? What does it remember or suggest? When executing the material again we include the shifts of attention, the moving of focus, try to recognize when and where the actual start was and when it ended.
When we started working the space was full of our process with Rebecka Stillman. Instead of taking it away and changing the space, it all is still there. Some things are used again and others are standing or lying there: residues, remnants, objects without an obvious function. We are adding to those objects, leave more things, more unused superfluous objects. They are there, waiting, reminding, predicting and suggestive of a past that is in us and we in it.
Through Lito’s writing* practice it seems we have gained access to places equivalent to the Aborigine Dreamtime, or a free pass to realms that usually takes years of psychoanalysis, but we somehow start to inhabit these places all day, which are usually beyond the reach of western lived states. We are still fully cognitive and processing with systematic precision (well attempting to and embracing and dealing with our failings as new facts that may catch us enough to be deliberately included in an again of some form). The precision is used in a way that is translucently open flowing to all areas but also with an emphasis on refining finest of details we feel compelled to capture, amplify, conceal or remove. A sublime symphonic harmonic dyslexia that rescripts itself, simultaneously cannibalizing and conceiving itself a new, each time it is activated or reformulated.
*So far Lito’s writing practice has included: means of rigorous application of reformulations, transforming and transgressing questions to imperative affirmations, responding with activations of the affirmations and then reprocessing them through performing, rescripting and then reperforming further transgressed/rescripted but not developed beyond the original performing, what actually was performed from the performers perspective.
How will we remove the talking and props from the work? Will it be amplified so much that it transcends into something where the props and talking become redundant and unnecessary?
I am dreading everytime we’re starting a new performance composition but love the feeling after having performed it; with all it’s imperfections. Did I break against a rule? Was that good or bad? I’ll probably just remember it and try not to put value on it. Why do I feel completely at home in one second to just feel completely lost the next?
Choosing the path I am not sure will work always makes it more interesting. How to anchor a memory by repeating but avoiding completeness? Will I ever enjoy doing it? Don’t I enjoy doing it? What is it actually that I am doing?
It’s only complete with an audience. Incomplete fragments.
On to talking, no props
In order to say no to something you have to know what you say no to.
We investigate props and talking spending time with them, by using props and talking.
We put pressure on these concepts to identify their edges, where do they break?
When/where does something/somebody become a prop? When/where does communication or using of voice become talking?
On removal/concealment/amplification in relation to above
Can something loose its meaning or become less clear through amplification?
Is obvious absence some kind of presence? Can we by removing talking from our material make someone think about the function of speech?
Can concealment be a main event, seen as more important than what it is concealing? Can we conceal something and then take away what we conceal, but keeping the act of concealment?
What is concealment an amplification of? A secret. Something that is important or threatening. Something that does not belong. What does concealment consist of? Something that is in line with that which belongs, a copy of it. It can be identical, but will always have another agenda.
Something:s, very precise and particular things, described and inscribed in neatly arranged and ordered forms, composed in concealed manners, flooding through this vessel that I am, a filter so full of imperfections, overloads and shadows: diffuse and imprecise is the name of the dance, …transing, all there is is is, one will be missing, bits from a wordfeast.
Read more »