Erik part II … and a kind of betrayal
More of Erik Kaiel’s presentation …
Erik mentioned Bahktin’s work and of the carnaval as an “opening in time where it doesn’t exist”, or the “day out of time”. Igor mentioned Neitzche’s “eternal return” (the non-repetitive repetition). Actually, various considerations of time have reoccurred a great deal these last four days.
Manuel commented on the video material as being more to do with endurance than exhaustion, and likened it to an advertisement for an energy drink, or a media-branded version of human endurance.
“Performance can sometimes be a trojan horse”.
Rui introduced questions about liveness in relation to the screen as a “kind of betrayal”. I got pissed off with him (certainly out of proportion to the ‘provocation’ as well!) mostly b/c I felt he was generalising about our approaches to presenting work on screen as if we weren’t aware of how contested this issue is. I think we agreed that we were all aware of videographic filter through which we were witnessing each other’s work.
I thought about Melzer’s work (from 95):
Melzer, A. (1995a). ‘Best Betrayal’: the Documentation of Performance on Video and Film, Part 1. New Theatre Quarterly, XI(42), 147-157.
Melzer, A. (1995b). ‘Best Betrayal’: the Documentation of Performance on Video and Film, Part 2. New Theatre Quarterly, XI(43), 259-276.
We attempted to put aside questions of documentation because they were pulling us away from discussions about Erik’s practice and work.
Nicole asked Erik “Where is the pleasure in this for you?”. Erik responded very beautifully about the “pleasure of the group”. I was deeply moved by this response.
I wondered (to myself) if perhaps Erik was talking about exhaustion as a kind of frame for the body, a means of thinking of the edges of what one is capable of. Later I asked him and he actually means it in terms of the physiology.
Effrosini talked very poetically about the work’s relationship to Parkour, and in the sense of the dancers “beating their relationship to time”. I was unsure though. Fencing is called “lightning chess” because of the ways in which the thinking is shifting through time, and for that matter chess embodies a very unusual sense of the temporal. I wonder if Effrosini was talking more about the pace of the engagement with time.
Gabi was excited by the intention of the movement, its urgency … “driven by it”. She questioned the format of the ‘choreographic’ moment of unison in the concrete football pitch. Igor responded by understanding this moment in the context of the sports field as a stage.
Nicole talked of the work in “conquoring the space”.
Erik finished by reading the programme note for the piece (Tender ruffians) he is currently performing, and will be showing at Theater Kikker on Tuesday April 21st. It contained this strong sense of valorising dance that ran through much of his presentation, and was overtly didactic (for my liking). But goddam this man has thought deeply and read widely about dancing, performing and in particular a sense of the ‘sacred’ in movement. It’s a privilege to be so provoked …
