Hi there,
Here are some answers to Johannes's thoughts - actually rather than answers
I would say I am just adding a bit of information to Scott's report to
clarify some of the very valid points Johannes raised.
------------------
Before I do that - here is something Barriedale Operahouse has been starting
off a couple of weeks ago - we are still testing - more about this later -
but feel free to come in and join already (it's free and open to everyone)
http://www.choreograph.net/forum (a forum dedicated to contemporary
choreography)
-------------------
> as both a rehearsed and an open structure or system that consists of
> variable modules which can be shifted in a non-linear "manifestation" of
> the 'work" that does not exist as a fixed object but as a continuous
> potential for manifestations (how different are they from each other,
> over time?).
>
The problem of difference...this has been giving us already quite a bit of
headache.
I guess this depends very much on the specific show and how much the
choreographer lets the dancer manipulate the movement/structure; how much
material is fixed or improvised; how much rules are there and what are they,
etc...
In the case of 'duplex' the 'difference' would be something like that:
The dancers have always one relationship to explore - which is their own. So
there are endless permutation of patterns within their relationship of where
they stand in love, hate, submission, etc...but it's still THEIR
relationship they are exploring. So one night you might get a calm version
with dancer A ruling and on night 2 you get dancer B ruling, etc.
Our current works have generally a strange drama to it. Those are works that
carve their path through their given phasespace. Flexible works that are
full of possibilities within a set frame. Endless permutation of
communication with more or less set vocabulary. The flow, the drift, the
play of it characterise its dramatic sense. No curve. The whole system is in
a condition that is chronically the same similarly to a rotating
kaleidoscope (though I guess once the relationship between the dancers would
change the whole piece would change as a result). One condition - endless
states.
It's the next step now to create difference through choreographic
techniques, which, in my eyes, has a lot to do with feeding forward history
from within the choreographic structure - giving the structure a kind of
memory to build on rather than endlessly exploring 'just' one phasespace.
> One question I had : to what extent is the older relationship between
> choreographer/choreography and performer-dancer in the interface also
> changing?
The choreographer creates something like 'phasespaces' rather than
'manifestations' of a dance. The dancer becomes a kind of a 'player' -
having to formulate strategies of how to progress throughout the piece
taking into account the partner's actions and the 'environmental
requirements' (the script).
> If the dancer is co-authoring the manifestation of the live
> performance with the software system (the role of Volkmar's music was
> not clear to me, is is processed in real-time with Max/Msp and thus also
> always potentially changing or changeable?)
Yes - the music works very similar. Some modules are soundfiles - some are
little algorithms themselves altering existing soundfiles on the fly - or
creating sounds in real-time...again this is a 'duplex'-specific' set-up and
is variable.
>, then it seems the concept
> of a "generalised genotype of a dance" (i.e. choreography as a
> determined set of learnt/rehearsed movement or vocabulary)
Not just movement or vocabulary - it also is/ could be a set of learnt
processes or rules
> , with
> "performances being its generalized phenotype" may undergo redefinition,
> no?
True.
In someway the whole genotype/phenotype terminology needs redefinition - as
the mechanics of how one influences the other are still pretty much opaque
anyway.
> I am assuming that the dance modules are not created (in a fixed manner)
> to the music, but could exist with different musical manifestations in
> the real-time synthesis, and thus the older connection
> choreography-music is also broken, no?
Not really this time round - in duplex most modules where created to
specific music files (but in duplex2 they might not - and in our previous
show - 'Nodding Dog' they didn't at all)
> I suppose my question aims at a
> better understanding of the value we give improvisation (and what kind
> of improvisation is it?) in the contemporary dance field.
This is an ongoing discussion - we are sometimes tempted to call it
improvisation and sometimes we are not...so we call it 'non-linear
choreography'. Does a football player improvise or is it rehearsed...?
I guess it's the same argument and if 'duplex' has brought dance closer to
the excitement of football I've achieved my task;)
Best,
Michael
!!webupdate : videos, visuals, news!!
======================================
Barriedale Operahouse
--------------------------------------
...coming up:
'Anglia to Brighton' 26/6 TQW (Vienna)
...for touring:
'duplex' (Ballett Frankfurt/DE)
---------------------------------------
artistic direction /
performance /
choreographic r+d
--------------------------------------
www.barriedale-operahouse.com
mail@barriedale-operahouse.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/29/02