Tasks & explorations in the studio

Perhaps in order to understand the writings around and about our method it would be helpful to give some examples of the kinds of tasks we have been doing.

OBJECT-EMBODIMENT-RELATIONSHIP

In Canterbury we worked for the first time in the dance studio with various objects selected with little discrimination other that we could carry them.

Objects included:

some of the objects used in Canterbury

a glass jar with red lid
a blue hippo sponge toy
a yellow plastic egg spoon
a metallic pyramid ornament/ box
a red decorative ribbon
red and pink collapsible paper lampshades
a wooden peg
a heavy lead pipe


We were beginning to work with object-embodiment-relationship. We spent time looking at each object and noticing qualities that we felt that object proposed. We especially noted contradictory ideas proposed the object, and ideas which seemed to go against "natural affinities" such as large things having heaviness. There are problems with the word "natural" of course... For each object we discussed tensions in qualities such as the quality of being infinitely amenable without standing up to gravity but with lightness enough to hold some form unsupported (red ribbon.

As we were interrogating the objects we were drawing attention to the obvious physical/ structural properties which are perhaps overlooked through an understanding of what is necessary for the object to sustain it's designed function. For example, the peg possessed two materials and two halves. The peg also possessed energetic potential ( in the spring), a certain life-span subject to wear and tear, strength, bilaterality, one point of flexibility, flat surfaces, tension/ resistance.... All these observations could and did then provide information for our own movement explorations, proposing some strange ideas for us to inhabit.

Once we felt that we had begun to explore the objects verbally, identifying proposed properties and ideas, we systematically explored these physically, then taking time to discuss what was happening for each of us.

METHODS OF INTERROGATING OBJECT-EMBODIMENT-RELATIONSHIP

In January at Laban we worked for 10 days, repeating similar tasks with different objects and slightly different focusses, to make clearer the method of interrogating (taking information from the) object and understand the sorts of physical responses we might be able to generate from certain objects.

This research phase built directly upon the groundwork done in Canterbury. During the studio time at Laban we agonised over how we were attending to the objects, and got really serious about our methodology. We had previously felt the necessity for clarity in our use of language, often finding that we were working with different references, however during this phase the need for concurrence on terms was paramount as found ourselves getting more and more detailed. We noted how in the first instant of attending to the objects we were using the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell with a probable preference for sight and touch. We decided then to break down this process, trying to focus on each of the senses at a time. We were interested in investigating if different qualities of information arose from interrogating the object with different senses.

We worked with all combinations of the 5 senses and 2 objects: the piano and the metal object in the photo below. We filmed the danced responses/ processing and timed 7 minutes for each. We have watched the film footage back, interested to see if there is evident consistency either across the sense categories or with each object through all the sense categories. There are some clear correspondences, but not yet enough material gained to state a consistent trend. We will follow up with further research...

A few objects that we approached in our January research phase.

Some questions/ thoughts that arose:

• Our different preferences in interrogating the object- something about activity and passivity.
• The process by which we select objects- we had stronger, more interesting responses to some over others but are not yet clear if there is a reason for this. It would be good to follow this up especially for when we get to a live performance situation...
• Being the object versus a relationship to the object.
• If we can devise a method which is replicable
• If we can re-find danced states in absence of the object, in another time.