 |
|
page
247
|
|
|
For fifteen
years
I have worked within areas of definition for the choreographic process
which would provide
me as a choreographer with the opportunity to think together with
dancers in the real or
“living space” of the performance time. This led me naturally to
description and analysis of meaning, and to an interest in flow charts,
structural
analysis and linguistics. (Ref. Particularly Patrice Pavis and his
theatrical analysis of
the mis-en-scene.) In this context I began to use the language of
“Open and
Closed Systems” and apply it to my choreographic process as “Open and
Closed
Forms, Structures, and Events.” Again, this language and way of
thinking was
not and has not become general to within any part of the dance field,
but has been related
to my own process of choreography and shared with my students.
When I came to the
Netherlands I was using this language to describe social and political
events and the
“Laws of Government” (MF) existing between the choreographer and the
dancer. The
social and political relationship between choreographer and dancer is
no where else
appreciated as the fundament of work, as the actual focus for the
decision making process
of choreography (leading to real time decisions within choreographed
forms in
performance). This is unique in my work. I have chosen to
use the human
relationship as the focus for the decision making process of
choreography. I then worked
from an article by Jean Francois Lyotard, “Let us be pagan and let us
be just”,
published in 1981. The paradox within his concern for absolute
and total
participation in a system of government, and the opposite need which
allows for a greater
order, representational government and delegated responsibility—this
interested me as
a model for the choreographic relationship. I then made two
pieces, “The Wisdom
of romance and The Thread of the Plot” (which dealt specifically with
the subject of
true and lasting love and prostitution, and drew parallels with
artistic positioning of
dancers as they become real people or performing objects of the
theatre.) The
dancers in this piece, especially within “Thread” were asked to work
with their
own personal desire and also the meet the demands of the
choreography. They were
asked to be pagan, to invent and reframe the piece each time it
occurred in a fully
participatory way, and at the same time to meet the ultimate rule of
meaning where the
piece would communicate overall the same meaning or identity at each
performance.
The background theory for this work also included the figure-discourse
work of Lyotard,
and my personal dis-ease which was arising since the post-modern debate
had finished and
was proving inadequate in the face of burgeoning irresponsibility for
environment, health,
welfare and global visions. See the accompanying book with the
performance text and
published “aesthetic surround” for the work. By this
time I had also read
Feyerabend’s AGAINST METHOD which was an endlessly awakening book, and
I was deeply
involved in the pursuit of a deterministic chaos as defined
scientifically. In fact,
my search for a truly deterministic chaos was what led me to perceive
that paradox, and
the use of paradox as structural system could provide me with a “Cloud
of
thinking” which would interfere with the through line of information in
a
choreography,
