here/there/then/now c h e r y l s t o c k with thanks to v a n e s s a m a f e s t e p h e n s t a n...
TRANSCRIPT
here/there/then/now C h e r y l S t o c k
with thanks to V a n e s s a M a f e
S t e p h e n S t a n f I e l d I a n H u t s o nQ U T c r e a t i v e i n d u s t r i e s b r i s b a n e a u s t r a l i a
site, collaboration, interdisciplinary performance
pillars in dialogue with floating objects
the inviting void of the black box
deep crevices with no purpose
then
now
there
here stairs to nowhere
where textured memories embedded in stone and metal merge with human presences
BACKGROUND
bringing together of 10 independent artists in dance, music, theatre, design, visual, media arts
responding to and evoking four sites inside the Brisbane Powerhouse
development of concept 2001rehearsals March to May 2002performances 15-19 May 2002
supported by Arts Queensland, QUT Creative Industries, Brisbane Powerhouse, Ausdance
PURPOSE
• support creative partnerships, established and new, in an interdisciplinary project
• work together on a common concept that allows for personal aesthetic positions and specialist art form processes and outcomes
• explore flexible performance platforms and theatricalise site-specific work
• investigate ways of creating narrative through fragmented intertextuality
• re-engage audiences in live performance through choices on how to view the works and from where
CONCEPT
• 3 discrete performance installations, each with their own aesthetic and communicative intention culminating in a fourth site where memories of the first three coalesce
• promenade journey of subliminal meanings through multiple viewpoints
• construction and deconstruction of narrative revealed and concealed by the embodied experience of site
• the body as site and repository of its own performing and lived histories combined with the inherent and imagined meanings and associations of the former industrial site of the Powerhouse
artists…. chosen for the unique qualities each could bring to the project
dynamic and supportive mix of experienced mature artists and emerging artists
high level of expertise in their field(s)
generous approach to sharing ideas and processes
independent and curious
committed, creative, resourceful
diverse in art forms/practices and response to the sites
four teams of new and old partnerships with crossover of some personnel in each team
CONCEPTS OF SITE IN PERFORMANCE
• ‘a site-specific performance defines itself ‘through properties, qualities or meanings produced in specific relationships between an “event” and a position it occupies’.
• the integral link between performance and place is ‘articulated through interdisciplinary practices’
• the creative process in site-specific performance acts out a “writing over” the site…’
(Kaye: 2000, 1-8)
WRITING OVER THE SITE
• the site is like a palimpsest in that is written over, effacing the original ‘writing’
• in the case of here/there/then/now the sites were written over with graffiti, so we were often ‘writing over’ the write over
• a site-specific work ‘inevitably operates in anticipation or in recollection of the places it acts out’
• ‘site-specific performance attempts to define itself in the very sites it is caught in the process of erasing’
Kaye 2000: 11, 220
erasure
ephemerality
‘one of the beauties of live performance is that it ignites a space and time and then disappears’
Meredith Monk
SITES of here/there/then/now
Focus of the work were the following sites:
•heightened theatrical and dramatic space of here•isolated entrapped enclosure of there•framed but open space of then•architectural extended space of now
shared space of memory concealed, revealed, fragmented, disturbed by light
here
stairs to nowhere
heightened theatrical and dramatic space
here stairs to nowhere
here - the familiar, safe, protected where fire is
power and warmth
- a dungeon where risk becomes danger
- a shadowy realm of dreams and memories
- a sharing of private moments publicly revealed
- the animal in the zoo; fascinating yet dangerous
Performer/creator: Brian LucasSound artist: Brett Collery Visual artist: Ian HutsonLighting designer: Jason Organ
A study of contrasts around victim and aggressor
deep crevices with no purpose
isolated entrapped enclosure
there
there deep crevices with no purpose
An Australian dancer and a Thai singer explore there • barred vertical site of shadows and blinding light• place of confinement and entrapment• enclosed intimate world of no exits
through dance/physical performance with acoustic unaccompanied voice and projected imagery, investigating reactions to situations of extreme stress when confronted with confinement.
Choreographer/performer: Leanne RingelsteinComposer/singer/performer: Nok ThumrongsatVisualisation: Ian HutsonLighting Designer: Jason Organ
then
pillars in dialogue with floating objects
framed but open space
then pillars in dialogue with floating objects
then• theme of the “still-life” as its organising
principle • distorted beauty and fragmentation of the
body and sound in space• heightened colour and unconventional
framing reflecting a Baroque sensibility• a platform for the interaction of industrial
site and theatrical setting
Choreographer/director: Vanessa MafeDancer: Ko-Pei LinSound composer: Stephen StanfieldInstallation artist: Jondi KeaneLighting designer: Jason Organ
contemplate the performer in a still life of objects, floating, hovering
now
the inviting void of the black boxarchitectural extended space
nowthe inviting void of the black box
• place of multiple entries and exits• performative dialogue of intersecting solos• emerging relationships of bodies and kinetic
pathways• visual and aural connections to the sites left
behind
now treats the theatre as architectural site housing a sparsely fragmented repository for what has gone before
Concept and direction: Cheryl StockPerformers/collaborators: Ko-Pei Lin, Brian Lucas, Leanne Ringelstein, Nok ThumrongsatComposer: Stephen StanfieldVisuals: Ian HutsonLighting Designer: Jason Organ
the viewer’s relationship to site
wide range of people from arts aficionados to those who had never attended contemporary performance
led from site to site in a promenade journey by guides
able to move around the sites but not within them thus changing points of view and relationship to the performing body; looking down, in, across rather than at the performers
mobility assists in making causal links between the sites and their stories drawn progressively through the building and into its depths
COLLABORATION
“collaboration is a "catalytic process" used in interactive relationships among individuals working toward a mutually defined, concrete vision or outcome”.
Idol and West, 1991
Since a creative project entails working with ideas that seem new or original, or transforming existing ideas and concepts in fresh ways it also relies on the harnessing of group innovation and creativity.
THEORIES OF GROUP CREATIVITY
• a group’s creative potential depends on level of diversity in the group; cognitive & intuitive
• relationship between diversity and creativity includes context, decision making strategies, leadership issues, feedback mechanisms
• importance of ‘authentic dissent’ (diversity of opinion)
• danger in early consensus or giving into conformity pressure
• involves divergent and convergent processes Nijstad & Paulus, 2003: 326-339
KEY AREAS OF CREATIVE COLLABORATIONS
• Communication skills• Developing a positive environment• Keeping decision making moving along• Recognising needs of individual members of
collaborative team• Resolving conflict and risk
Pritzker & Runco, 1997: 115-141
COLLABORATIONan artist view
“Collaborations, at their best, are profound learning experiences that empower the collaborators to expand their visions and their creativity, give them courage, critique and support to move into areas of work they might otherwise not venture into, and provide exciting spaces for experimentation. At their worst, they allow some collaborators to colonise others and this is a most disempowering experience!”
Marion D’Cruz (2003:77)Malaysian choreographer/artist
COLLABORATIVE DIMENSIONS
transactional/task • common creative agendas which allow for diversity and cross over of practices, approaches and ideas • acceptance of leadership and shared responsibility• discipline based confidence and expertise• ‘a communicative relationship’ (Grau, 1992:19) - between collaborative partners, within the work and with the audience • dependability• proactive and reactive process• participation at all levels of the project including budgets, marketing, scheduling etc
relational/creative• developing interpersonal relationships of mutual respect and interactive support • valuing specialist art form differences in language, aesthetics, processes, outcomes • consideration• valuing and accepting difference which encourages new avenues for understanding• positive / affirmative behaviours
COLLABORATIVE CHALLENGES in here/there/then/now
• sudden and tragic death of a key member resulting in a 8 month postponement of the project
• an experienced choreographer/dancer who had done the concept mapping for one site was offered and accepted full-time work
• personal political agenda of one member became an undermining and obstructive force in the early stages of the process, creating unacceptable tension
• personal artistic agenda of a lead team member resulted in non-engagement with the site and therefore a threat to the integrity of the project which was site driven in its concept
Four of the original ten team members were replaced through the following circumstances:
views of participating artists
Vanessa Mafe - choreographer/director then
old and new collaborative relationships
with experienced visual artist Jondi Keane:• both experienced artists with a long history of collaboration and
open to investigate ideas• had already established images as the foundation for a common
language
with young dancer Ko-Pei Lin:• guiding and mentoring role to encourage interactive participation• need to establish a way of working together and then identifying
“breakthrough” creative experiences beyond the usual dancer/choreographer relationship
views of participating artists
Stephen Stanfield, composer then & now
Differing collaborative processesthen• initial discussions of concept and viewing of images and movement
of work in progress• composition starting point was the concept of ‘still life and decay’ • composition and choreographic processes were almost entirely
independent from one another
now• score constructed of transformed material from other sites, with new
elements idiosyncratic to the fourth installation. • past sounds were manipulated and recontextualised in time and
space creating a sonic-wash of fragmented, distorted, and distant memories…
• collaborative process was quite organic with the music and choreography developing symbiotically
views of participating artists
Cheryl Stock - project concept/directiondirector/choregrapher now
• assumed role of director / coordinator as conceiver of project• interactive communication with all collaborators crucial aspect of
role• ‘participant/observer’ in first three sites; no primary creative role• collaborative consultative process involved overview integrating
visual, theatrical, auditory elements, and links between sites• creative process of now dependent on deconstructed narratives and
images from other 3 sites; fluid , morphing between created and creating images, objects, artists
• blurred and indecipherable ‘ownership’ of resultant work
for the artists:opportunities for expanded dialoguerenewed investigative practices in the artsbuilding of artistic communities emergence of more layered approach to own practices
for the audience:collaboration between performer and audience results in “meaning-making”, ‘where the performative text is the reading, and where the emphasis is on process, on meaning as becoming’
Sandra Kemp, in Campbell, 1996:9
COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES
DANCE AS A BASIS FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION
• space / design / shape – the architecture• rhythm / flow / time – duration• dynamics / force / energy – texture• body / instrument - medium
elements of a discipline/artform applied to collaboration form the basis of a shared interdisciplinary language:
Dance language, in common with music and visual arts, is poetic rather than prose-like because of its ‘multiple, symbolic and elusive meanings’ (Hanna, 1997:147)
INTERDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE• involves collaboration between distinct disciplines with different
approaches, viewpoints and forms of expression
• enables specialists to find the spaces between their individual practices in which to discover a shared creative/performative language based on common principles
• entails a change in processes of creation, observation and reflection
• an ongoing journey of discovery, questioning, and discussion
• requires multiple interpretations and knowledge of more than one discipline
• allows what is there to form the interdisciplinary language being created for each particular project
• creates multi-layered narratives since ‘reading, watching, listening…assumes that a story is being told’ (Kemp, 1997:172)
INTERDISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES
• establishes common working ground between disciplines
• generates open lines of exchange
• questions and offers alternatives for the conventions, vocabulary and assumptions inherent in each discipline
• defines one’s own artistic practice more clearly inside and outside the discipline
• has the potential to shift, connect differently with, and transform one’s particular practice
• broadens one’s knowledge of other approaches and opens up new possibilities personally and creatively
here/there/then/now
CREATIVE AND PRODUCTION TEAMConcept/direction: Cheryl Stock
Collaborating artists: Brett Collery, Ian Hutson, Jondi Keane, Ko-Pei Lin, Brian Lucas, Vanessa Mafe, Jason Organ, Stephen Stanfield, Nok Thumrongsat
Project manager / production coordinator: Kyle Petersen
Lighting/site coordination: Jason Organ
Sound coordination: Stephen Stanfield
Stage manager: Ryan Colbran
Wardrobe: Bianca Sevil
Program design: Ian Hutson, Pam Koger
CRICOS CODE:00213J