To begin… usually this the biggest question and the biggest hurdle in any process.
| So I start by casting a few lines... | ||
| weighing my options | ||
| and I am still waiting for the bite. |
Waiting for my own intentions to bite and dig in that is.
In accordance to my (1st draft) proposal I source from material that is already available to me. I take the time to re-learn and reacquaint with the some-what familiar. This motivation serves me two-fold: partly to prepare for the intensive yet to come/improve my directorial articulation and partly to pull apart patterns, push my own edges and force myself into a refined intentionality (i.e.-go deeper).
Through the powers of video I stare at bodies that are not my own. I am confounded by the what is. I had a heavy hand in the making this material. In fact it is my process, my material. I adapt- where does this material fit on my body?
(I panic, have I picked an uninspiring task to pursue? I breathe - you have only watched two videos. Relax.)
… the line is still cast, I can still retreat quickly and find a new cove for entry.
I breathe..
In my presentation of material I presented two sets. They are not connected, for referential purposes I will differentiate the two by labeling them 1st Set and 2nd Set.
The 1st Set was as close to the origin as I could muster, including the initial creation source and the adaptations to present. (This information is beyond this posting, but if you are interested I would be happy to fill in the sub-text, just leave a comment indicating so).
The 2nd Set was a re-approach, a listening. Cryptic I know. But I used my text of perception, listening, and sensing as my first filter in adapting the movement.
An evaluation:
In the 1st set I am drawn to the process of specified initiation and carving/following the path of travel or phrasing through the body. Although I am disenchanted with something slightly familiar to this performitivty or approach to moving. Can I challenge myself to stick to the local specificity of initiation and follow-through and not throw it away to the general sense like I always do?
The tone of the 2nd Set is more unfamiliar to me and less defined. The wavering of time (matter of factness to physical surge) and the scale of performativity could be played, pulled apart, and structured in a way to develop and understand this more seemingly unknown place to me. Through the use of text and addressing the public the line between inviting and intimidating the audience is one not yet- but should be considered. I like this point and now personal challenge.
The question I posed at the end of the community sharing was to solicit verbalization in how to compare the differentiation or legibility of the two… if one was even present that is.
If you, my community had your choice: which of the two sets should I pursue? Or what qualities from each set read as new challenges for me to pursue?
-for digital archive and trace notes-
Feedback Notes:
| 1st Set: -Searching -Shape/Face -Long-stretched time -Syncopated -Intentionality in an interesting way -Initiations -Recognized may be hard to sustain |
2nd Set: -Experiencing -Matter of fact in experience of -Bounce -Long -Not as complex in shape of body -Surging -Acceleration that was interesting but didn’t last - peaked interest than kicked the audience to the side of the road. - |
Comments/Observations:
Crossing the mid-line
Beginning had an intentional use of time - sustained
(This was) Lost in the rotations (floor)- I need/use time of physics for thrust to resolve
Initiation of body parts- sometimes overlapping which read as a differentiation from the base line (4th position pivot)
Vertical rotation with looking a thematic repetition
Unexpected weird chicken walk- strange but engaging (Jacinte’s pelvis articulation)
Talking style is reporting, which took place in the talking corner (DSR)
Movement coordinated with text
Shortly after reporting of facts turned into…. Oh this is about dancing (O2 reference)
Viewers gaped out in between surges (Crawl walk on floor to run in circle –was gap)
Pelvis play
Expansion- reach
Back Space was very noticeable- this drew the viewer in
Articulation
Speed noticeable- slow down/rev up
The use of gaze created a knowing/unknowing spectrum.
Retreating sense of space- using the vertical up and down
Clear directions of focus but were many spots- didn’t know where audience was suppose to be lead, they got lost.
Describing and experiencing
Talking was simultaneously inviting and intimidating – it was a fine line and the audience was confused which side to live on.
No comments:
Post a Comment