To be a company
To be a company but not be in the same constellation every day
To work with the absence of company members.
Does collectivity exist in an ever changing structure?
We have hopes for the future of the company and we have many questions; we speculate about the future of Weld Company and ‘The Dance Company’ in general.
We are two clusters merging with new members freely oscillating between them. The boundaries between Weld Co 13 and 14 dissolving as we meet in various constellations.
In 2013 when I spent nearly 3 months in this structure through working with the invited choreographers the relationships with the other dancers were forged by this work. Through the work we related in a certain way with a certain body. These bodies are absent or have changed and ways of connecting are re-negotiated and bodies are re- again. By choosing to do or not do things identities change course or shape or manifest in a different way. Shape-changing the identity of Weld Company.
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 »