Where we are at in February 09

We met in January 09, two months after our residency in Canterbury (November 08). Since beginning our process in France we had not had an extended research period with uninterrupted studio time so we were excited to be supported by Laban during this phase.

In the time we spent apart, we were working on applications regarding this project as well as independently on our own projects. This break allowed us to digest the information gathered in our Canterbury session and reflect upon our endeavour.

Upon meeting in January we decided to focus on the taxonomy/classification strand of our research, and leave the lineage/personal history of things for a later stage of the process. In doing so, we were able to narrow our field of investigation and return in more detail to some of the elements we had already identified (i.e. the need for clarity and rigour in approach).

How to define taxonomy?

Taxonomy generally means the practice or principles of classification. It is the science of organisation; organising (typically living organisms) into increasingly broader categories based upon shared features. Traditionally grouping occurs based upon physical resemblances but in recent times other criteria (such as genetic matching) have also been used. Our interest is both in the categorisation and the lineage, but here we are talking about the former.

In our process so far we have been using taxonomy creatively, according to properties that arise from the objects (refer to the process begun in Charente and explored somewhat in Canterbury). To proceed in a meaningful way we have felt the pre-requisite of a clear method a priori, a consensus of opinion about both what we were doing and how to go about it.

We needed to develop a reliable method to identify the main property of an object. We needed to identify the main criteria by which we interrogated objects. Our aim ultimately, however, is to let go of rational, objective criteria in order to access more primary (perhaps complex and subjective) properties of the object – the essence or "-ness". We are therefore playing with alternative truths within a rational system.
In order to use embodiment to access the essence of things, we devised a method based on our early experience of the embodiment of (the perceived properties of) objects in Canterbury. The method we call the "processing machine" is the result of our process at Laban. It defines the tools that are available to us to interrogate selected objects, at one end, and the different media we can use to express the essence of the object identified in the process, at the other end.

During our process, we broke down the different stages of the processing machine. Firstly, looking at how we interrogate objects using tools of interrogation. This is the first level of the method: our five senses. The second level of the method (ways of investigation) allows memory, knowledge and imagination to add a second layer of information.

This stage of our method has its roots in the phenomenology of perception ( Merleau-Ponty), and the idea of looking at the world each time with a fresh eye. As the phenomenological method seeks to bracket pre-suppositions to attend to the world as the objects/ events arising in consciousness, so we seek to begin with the senses, attending to the thing in itself over what we know of it.

Following the method we are devising, next come the media of expression that allow us to distil the information gained from interrogation and investigation. In our improvisations we used movement, speech, sounds and drawing to embody the "what" we perceived from the objects. We had a sense that many other media could be explored such as film, photography, installation, and maybe also smells, flavours ... (if we had the skills to realise these).

(Although we are currently exploring primarily through the medium of the body, there is a precedent in our work to explore through multi-media and we have loftier ambitions for our endeavour...)
Working back and forth between the physical exploration of the method and analysing it, we acknowledged that except from the first level of interrogation, that is to say attempting to use only the senses in our first approach of the object, all the other elements of the processing machine are layers that may overlap adding new information about the object that feed back onto itself, like an inward fountain. The act of moving brings with it information which relates back to the object through the limits proposed by the object. By pushing against these limits aswell as accepting information that readily arises from exploration, we feel that slowly we reach a deeper, clearer understanding of the "ness" of an object, perhaps beginning to name what that something is. It becomes clearer here that all things are an extended along continuums, and though not binary in it's totality, n object proposes itself within a system of binary oppositions, eventually enabling a relation between other objects to be plotted (as with the traditional sense of taxonomy based on genetic information).

It has become quite clear for us that the embodiment of the quality or the essence of an object isn't arbitrary but is strongly linked to how we physically perceived the object at the time. Our improvisation is therefore guided both by the method and the stimulus of the object: it works from the inside out.

We are aware that the method still needs to be refined and practiced. Our aim is for it to become second nature to us, reducing the time we need to both interrogate and distil the information given by the object. This method offers very playful compositional tools that we hope to use in an improvisation score.


All these ideas will be further expanded.

On blogging

Why use a blog?

We are international artists, Elodie resident in Paris, Janine in London. Since embarking upon this project we have worked together in New York, Charente, Canterbury and London. The next phase of our work will take place in Paris in the early Spring 09. Whilst the underwater train does run regularly and (reasonably directly) to our doors, there is a limit to how many times we meet in each others' countries at the moment.

We both agree that the space for reflection afforded by the pauses between research phases are beneficial, and actually probably essential when our work becomes very "heady". However, as collaborators and excellent friends, we miss a regular exchange of thoughts and a dialogue about ideas- afterall we use each to propel our own ideas forward and the work gained momentum through our exchanges.

We each keep notebooks and we periodically make an effort to standardise the information contained so that we have landmarks or summaries of where we are at every now and then. This is really helpful at these developmental stages when there are so many ideas that we are seeking to structure. Inevitably we organise our ideas differently and our diagrammatic representations are different, but this is a shared process so we share them, and the differences can add new information too.

So. Where does that leave us?

Well, as recognised widely these days, documentation is (if not everything then very) important. For applications, evidence of process... And this is a research process. We are using this blog as a forum for sharing notes and resources between ourselves, having conversations and organising our research in a more linear way than perhaps it feels in the studio (where we are often having to review and clarify). It is important for us to know that we are using the same language in the same way at this stage of laying the foundations of a method; writing helps that by fleshing out arguments for subtleties in definition which carry a lot of connotation and thus affect both our understanding of what we are doing, and that of our potential reader/ audience.

In making this resource publicly available we invite spectators to our process in the same way that we invite audience to sharings. We are not presenting a finished work, but threads and snippets.

So in short: the blog allows us to present visual and film work, text and commentary, links and access to our profiles (other ideas/ work/ projects) and helps to keep us in touch across the land and seas. It is like our caravan.

Thoughts on sensation

There are several aspects that I would like to develop, elements that need being mentioned because they feel quite important to me in relation to our process. Although I think that writing about these elements might help our reader(s) get a better idea of our work, they aren't quite articulate in my mind to really write a full note about each of them (but I will soon).

First, I was particularly interested in the different ways we approach objects (this can relate to the note on ways of investigation). We noticed in our second week of our January session that we approached objects slightly differently, not in our choice of tool (though there are some differences here too) but more generally in the relationship we created with the object to interrogate it. I found myself being more passive as Janine appeared more active. (My intention here isn't to privilege one over the other but rather to introduce tendencies that once acknowledged become extra tools available to both of us.)

An active approach would be inquisitive, meeting the object, exploring it from all possible angles as if to discover its hidden secrets. I have the feeling that an active approach attempts to get as much information about the object as possible. On the other hand, a passive approach involves, stepping back, letting the object come to us from a certain distance. The passive approach therefore gains a broader, but not necessarily less precise, sense of what the object.

During our exploration, I drew a link between the latter approach and an area that particularly interests me: sensation. Stepping back during the interrogation of the object I let the object unlock areas of sensation, that is to say a certain amount of physical response in my flesh, my bones, my skin, my guts ... As a response, sensation appears quite irrational yet very tangible.

After experiencing sensation in relation to a an object, the method (our processing machine) allows us to distil the raw information until it slowly becomes clearer. The understanding of the sensation becomes deeper but also easier to express, and perhaps even to describe verbally.

There were many questions in relation to sensation as the information that is distilled isn't the essence of the object itself but that of the essence of the sensation.

However, I feel that sensation could be a basis for classification, sorting objects by the sensation they triggered or by the nature of the sensation itself.

Working with sensation could also be a first element to explore relationships between ourselves and the objects, an aspect of the work we wish to study in our future session.

In any case, I found that sensation gave to my improvisation a certain density that I found quite surprising, challenging and exciting. I felt I could really explore the density of the object within my own body.

Elodie

On the necessity of a research project

Nowadays, it is widely recognised among contemporary artists and audiences that process is key to making work. First as students and then as independent artists we both demonstrated a stronger interest in the process rather than in the final product. Our choice in collaborating together therefore comes from this common approach.
Our initial goal was to work toward making a dance piece, still allowing ourselves enough time and space to develop our process, question and challenge our creativity. However, after many discussions attempting to define the nature of our focus, we realised the breadth of our field of interest and decided to embark on a research project, therefore postponing the production of a choreography.

We feel that a research project not only allows us to spend the necessary time to get a deep understanding of the elements we study, it gives room for risk-taking in our practice, therefore avoiding any familiar short cut to achieve our goals.
Our research also give a context to the questioning of our individual practices. We each approach it from a slightly different angle, each using it as a lab for our own observation. However, the awareness of the small differences in our personal interests remains in the background: personal interests never take over our joint enquiry.

Our choice of method also reflects our interest in the theory surrounding arts. As BA students at Laban, we both based our dissertation on critical theory and philosophy (Merleau-Ponty, Deleuze). Today, we wish to apply our academic knowledge to our creative practice as well as generate discourse about dance as a medium. Exploring taxonomy both practically and verbally encourages us to analyse our method, defining a language specific to it. Finally, it allows us to set our endeavour within a certain context, drawing from theories that previously treated similar subjects.

Furthermore, we view our project as a form of acknowledgement of the influence of artists and practitioners that we had the opportunity to meet and study from. We both took workshops with Simone Forti (Elodie in November 07 and Janine in March 08) whose approach to movement, text and improvisation are key elements of the method we are exploring. (Simone's influence in our work shall be further developed in a separate note). As artists we are also both inspired by american post-moderns (Judson Church, Anna Halprin and their followers) as well as other artists whose creative practices are intimately related to their ongoing research.
Our project can therefore also be considered a demonstration of our engagement in a certain scene. We hope to challenge dance as a form and contribute to the development of choreographic research, within our ability of course.

Finally, the necessity of this research project reflects who we are as general people: moving individuals with a tendency to explore, reflect and analyse the world that surrounds us in order to deal with it the best we can.

Janine

This is Janine in New York. I like to think of our meeting there in May 08 as the begining of our collaboration.

There wouldn't be any Janine and Elodie without Janine !

Elodie

This is Elodie. Elodie is 50% of Janine and Elodie. She is essential to this collaboration.

A thought about the "ways of investigation"

Calling the second level the "ways of investigation" no longer makes sense to me. I have to ask myself if memory, knowledge and imagination show me a way to investigate. There is definitely an exchange between the information provided from the investigation (level 1) which becomes multi-sensory and reinforced by the second level and this remains a constant coming and going between myself and the object in improvisation. The tool(s) of interrogation feels like a tether to the object where otherwise I might follow a related, but not integral avenue of interest in improvisation. The way in which I investigate does depend on the first level (if there is restriction in which tool I can use for example) but the second level is really the key to realising a creative response. So is it the way I investigate ? Not really. It is the basis upon which I am able to carry out my investigation...

Stages in taxonomy

First taxonomical attempts using polarities such as: empty/containing; edible/non-edible; boxes/round. We slowly moved to less rational polarities and even less objective criteria: blue/round; things that are taller than wide/things that are labelled; smooth/things that would tessellate. Form those polarities we began to evoke the idea of a continuum to position elements (things that are taller than wide/things that are labelled but also things that are taller than wide with a label). (August 08, Charente).

Some of the objects used in Canterbury in our exploration of embodiment. We mostly played with the objects, consciously choosing aspects of the objects and transferring them to the body. It now appears to us as the embryo of the processing machine. (November 08).

Studio space at Laban (Laurie Grove, London). The organisation of the space reflects our process: (from left to write) a space to draw, objects to interrogate, the camera to document the process and a space to reflect, discuss and write. Although quite distinct we integrate all those elements as part of the same creative practice. (January 09).

between you and me and the window and the tree

This is a snippet of a little research play during our residency chez Pras, August 08. In the instance of the film we play with appearance/ disappearance as an extension of the kind of illusions and sensory play fleetingly experienced in everyday life. We chose to manipulate the environment, using reflection in the open window to displace the space and also create a screen behind which we are unseen. As an idea it is undeveloped, but offers a flavour of our experiments during the Charente residency.

Chair and hanging installations in Charente, Aug 08

Charente, August 08

Embarking upon a residency period at the house of artist Bernard Pras in Charente, France (August 2008) we had- really for the first time- the opportunity to work and play together, exploring the common ground of our interests. We spent time writing, building, dancing, drawing, talking, cooking, laughing, cycling, filming. We allowed our process to emerge through all these activities in the beautiful French countryside. The house was filled with all kinds of objects- strange and familiar, old and older still. We gradually orientated ourselves to various organisations of these objects. We worked separately at first, enjoying freedom of method. Each quietly set about exploring according to their interest. Elodie's project involved documenting artefacts found in the out-houses, composing an installation of object and owner in a hanging box in the garden (see photos). Janine collected up all the chairs (many and various) from the buildings and set about animating them into a heap escaping the house from windows and doors (see photos). As we talked about what we were doing some central ideas became apparent- those of organising objects and the history of objects/ possessions. From these beginnings we were able to identify a common ground and the central concerns of taxonomy and lineage.

In the beginning: what is the something that that is?

(a short warm up) Laban graduates of 2006, Janine and Elodie have worked individually in various professional capacities over the past two years. Both have sought to continue their professional development outside of institutions, building upon the knowledge gained through study at Laban and a playing with the application of our creativity. We are now developing a long-term collaboration, defining our research ground and devising a way in which to work between the UK, France and beyond. Our trajectories have passed through some common ground- separately we participated in Simone Forti's Logomotion workshops- Elodie in France, Janine in Italy. I think we are in agreement that the experience of this work has formed a keystone of our mutual enquiry (more about this later). For one year Elodie was engaged as a dancer for several artists in New York, and there experienced a desire to source work not only from the body but to explore the remit of her field within the art world more generally. Elodie returned to Paris restless with vibrant creativity and set about choreographing a solo work (premiered in February 08), teaching and wondering about a creative practice which does not as its premise determine any one mode of expression. Meanwhile in the UK and Europe, Janine had been working in various collaborative situations with visual, fine and digital artists. Projects included a film/ live art installation afewsquaremiles for one audience member, commissions from Duckie and the Light Surgeons (site specific) and presentation of work for the stage. Janine has recently been dancing for Valerie Preston-Dunlop's heritage film project, Unearthed and in Southeast Dance commissioned film Opus:One in Folkestone. Our process began in Charente, France in August with a 10 day residency chez Pras exploring with film, photography, movement of bodies and objects. We were exploring ideas of lineage in personal histories of objects, familial relations and movement properties, stating " I know that there is a thing shared, but what is the something that that is?"/ "How do these things belong, what makes it so? From a seeming logic can there develop a new taxonomy whose proposed polarisations and relationships suggest inventive co-ordinates for creative play?" We are interested in new opposites, false tallies and how close we are to being really really very shiny. It's playful, curious work in which we will not compromise technical skill but will enforce compositional discernment through the rigour of the method we devise.