![]() |
|
|
||
|
|
could be used in this case simply as imaginative material. This is not to say that the work was sloppy, but rather that the boundaries of possibility were intentionally as wide as we could make them. Object/movement and word/movement possibilities were explored extensively. Physical contact as a means of generating movement ideas was also a recurring feature. 1. Sound Apart from ambient or natural sound characteristics of the spaces, there was intermittent use of harmonicas, accordion and voice often in rhythmic or repetitive forms and on occasions when this spread tot he group as a whole, it became a powerful unifying element. 2. General Characteristics of the Work This kind of work brings out one thing, more particularly than anything else, that being a very distinctive quality in each person’s work. We set out to refine these distinctions and at the same time, to continually transcend them. Most of us felt, I think, that we worked very differently in each session, but to the others, there developed a very definite character in each person’s mode of work. It is hard to describe, what this character was, and in the work we named it with arbitrary names: Orange, Egg, Harmonica, Pillow, Owl, Words, Little Lady. To get any closer to these one would have to find metaphors or equivalents. Of one person’s way of working I thought, “You turn round to find her and she is standing above you on the ceiling. Of another, she spins out stories as a spider spins a web. Was the nature of the process unusual? In many respects I think not. It certainly had very common equivalents, for instance, when people tell each other stories to pass an evening or when someone absent-mindedly draws something in the dust with a foot on a hot day. here is obviously very widespread use of improvisation in dance or theatre. Performance art is a very well established form involving mixes of sculpture, dance, etc. but even though most of us had worked in these areas before, none of us had worked with as little framework and with as much variety of interaction. Was skill a crucial factor? It seems to me that this kind of work draws upon general skills that everyone has. However, it probably helped that we had all developed high levels of discrimination and perception in one area, or another (movement, sound, visual art.) The value of skill was partly in increasing the variety of what one could attempt. But what was essential in the work was a general skill of attentiveness and flexibility or openness or response. There was also a kind of skill in being able to tolerate a structure that always stayed at the edge of uncertainty, never lapsing into repetition. One thing that especially interested me was that we had found a collaborative working situation in which everyone could operate in a manner that was not less than their total self. In other words, there was no constricting plan of action or need to conform to someone else’s schema. Often I have felt in watching performances that the person involved had been reduced to a mere