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.

Thoughts on our work in an educational context

Our research project is broadly concerned with a question: What is the something that that is?

When physically negotiating the world we are continually processing visual and sensational information aswell as information coming from memory and imagination.

In dance classes there is often a prioritising of form. We are exploring the relationship between perceptual and physical information and our own movement by exploring the properties proposed by objects. For example this might begin with a personification of object, noticing structural similarities between the object and our own bodies which might suggest "stimulus" type physical visual response. As the process of "seeing" or attending to an object is refined we can notice ideas proposed by the object such as a quality of tiny disorganisation, stability with lightness, having the appearance of integrity but being separable by force...and so on. The aim for such explorations is to open up th world of possibility for physical embodiment and creative engagement with the world through movement when the propositions contain logical oppositions.

The experiments are designed to be fun, suggesting investigative tools for creative play, broadening movement vocabularies, challenging ideas about compositional tools in secondary dance education and making movement relevant in everyday life. In the workshops we are exploring the way that people gesticulate in speech, how their bodies are active in communication and how close this is to the experience of information processing during improvisation.

A return to a state of wonder at the world is possible through attention, too often young people are bombarded with complex sensory information that stimulates them in a manner conducive to physical passivity. We are interested in how to open a channel of stimulation by acting in and on the world, looking twice and taking responsibility for our own physical responsiveness.

Beyond these ideas around movement studies in dance education, we are developing a creative methodology from which we will build a performative score. In March 2009 we are still working to define and refine the terms of this method in our studio practice, thinking, writing and teaching.

A few questions we asked the young people involved in the workshops we did at Dance Warehouse.

1.Have you been involved in a workshop/ class like this before? If not, how was it different from the other classes you have done?

2.What sorts of things are you interested in? This can be subjects at school, books you read, films, music, issues in the world e.t.c.

3.How do you think about your dance classes? Are they for fun, fitness, to be with your friends, perhaps you want to study dance when
you leave school or you can be creative in classes in a different way to other parts of your life. There isn't a correct answer!

4.Is there anything that you especially remember from the workshop- that you enjoyed or found difficult? Did you feel challenged?

5. If we think about the objects we used, can you say something about how that was for you. What relationship did you manage to build with the object, or how did you physically relate to it. Write anything that you remember, I know it was a while ago...

6. We asked you to move without telling what to do, it was up to you to respond physically. How did this feel- was it fun, or scary? Did you feel more confident at the end of the session?

7. Finally, would you like to do more of this type of workshop? Feel free to write anything that we haven't thought of asking!

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).