The influence of Simone Forti's Logomotion on our research

Our project together is the result of both our individuality and our shared experiences and training. We both agree that the separate Logomotion workshops we took with Simone Forti (Elodie in November 2007 in France and Janine in March 2008 in Italy) play a large part in our current research. Of course, we are not arguing that our process is similar to Simone's or directly derived form her work, our research isn't a straight continuation of the process she led us through. We would like, however, to acknowledge the influence of our experience with Simone's on our joint research.

I remember Simone mentioning the image of using the process to open small windows. These small windows could open to a whole new world to explore. I think Simone's workshops were like windows too: they opened new areas for us to explore or not, planted seeds that could grow right then or that would grow later. This is how I like to think of Simone's influence on our research: she shared some tools, methods, ideas, experiences that took us ahead faster than we would have otherwise. I believe that the workshops mostly helped reveal things that existed in us already.

The most important seed that was planted for me working with Simone was the idea that seemed central to her work: body/mind/world. Improvising with her Logomotion method, I experienced something quite similar to what physically goes on in our processing machine: as we improvise, we build a web between our body and our mind, therefore opening a small window to a/our world, or part of it. The improvisation itself is entirely embedded in that world, that we may have never accessed, or not be aware of.

I also realised working with Simone that something very powerful could happen in the improvisation if I was in a specific physical and mental state of awareness. For the first time then, I managed to source my improvisation from a very deep level of the self that wouldn't be concerned with aesthetic views or putting a preconceived form on the body. The movement could be sourced from the inside-out. This has interested me very much since and I feel that it is partly what we are doing in our process though approaching from a very different place.

I feel that this deep dive requires the mind to be in a certain place; would I be able to access that deep level with the focus on choreography, aesthetic qualities or composition (although in some ways the Logomotion is in itself compositional)? In the workshop we focussed on books we were reading, conversations about them, or on our writings around the books, sourcing our improvisations from these elements or rather, as I understand it now, from the resonance of those experiences. This very strong focus on specific yet undefined elements detaches our mind from judgement of the improvisation or arbitrary choreographic choices and therefore allows us find new paths is the body as well as new connections between the body, the mind and the world.

Although in the something that that is we focus on the resonance of what we perceive from objects rather than on text, the stimulated channels are very similar: in both cases, it strongly had the impression that refining the idea/improvisation/process was like spinning wool. Starting with something quite confused and undefined yet tangible, we follow and clarify a developing thread of idea that demands attention as it can escape us or break at any moment.

The Logomotion workshops also opened new areas for us in the process of improvisation. Working on text, speech and movement with Simone allowed us to explore a certain sensibility that we had and discover ways to use it.
Our use of speech in our research is strongly related to our experience with Simone: it is another media to explore and embody the resonance of the initial stimulus. Speech finds its source in the body and explores the same threads as the movement. Speech and movement are therefore the manifestation of the same non linear thinking process.

For Simone thinking, along with memory, knowledge, imagination and association are key elements of the improvisation: they modify the landscape of the improvisation and focus the attention away from choreographic concerns, opening ourselves to the surprise of new elements.
In our process, we identified those elements as the second layer of interrogation. After interrogating objects with our senses, we let that second layer come into play and inform the improvisation tracing new paths, all related to the original object by association memory and so on.
Simone's workshop really brought the richness of that second layer and the lush playfulness of it to my awareness. Memory, knowledge, imagination and association weave complex links between body, mind and world.

As a conclusion I would say that Simone Forti's greatest influence is in the possibilities that she opened for us. Today, we are not working with the Logomotion method, neither are we focussing on applying what she taught us. However, elements of her work and memories of that experience often come up as we research. We find support, confidence and hope from the powerful human experience that working with her represented for both of us.

Simone

Simone Forti in Orvieto, Italy, March 2008.

J: In the workshop experiences we had with Simone Forti we experienced her Logomotion research separately, but similarly. In Orvieto, I explored speaking-writing-moving really for the first time with any focus and longevity of investigation. In my own practice, I recognise now that the interplay between text and movement has always been present, but in a mostly undisclosed manner. I mean that when I worked with Simone I could feel a "homeliness" in working between text and movement, but that the methodology was unfamiliar to me. I had never exposed my process in that respect, inpart I think because of my infancy as a maker. I found the workshop investigations then at once challenging and familiar....

E: Text, speech and movement have been part of my creative practice for quite a long time. I remember exploring speech and movement in my own choreographies as a student at Laban, as well as sourcing my work from reflective writing, and therefore letting some of it filter in the work. Working with Simone helped me bridge these different elements as well as understand how they can all be the manifestation of the same creative activity. It was extremely challenging to me as it placed the self at the center of the experience, therefore leading me to a very vulnerable yet extremely rich place.

J: As Elodie and I have discussed our work we have settled on the term "track-changing" to describe the potential for information to be converted into another medium. This may not be a clean translation, and here the idea of currency is useful to me. In Simone's work we both experienced and witnessed instances of live processing in the improvised form- when the idea spoken or danced changes either in content or due to swapping between the modes of expression (movement, language). Much much more could be said here about the beauty of clarity in these processes. In recent conversations we have have discussed and shared writings and talked a little of dances experienced with Simone, noting our mutual interest in the integrity of the decision making processes in speaking/ writing/ dancing which follows a stream of consciousness subject to diversion and content switching.

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!

Here we are again in case you had forgotten what we looked like with all the writing...

WHAT NOW

Sat 18th April 12-9pm, Sun 19th 12-5pm. Siobhan Davies Studios, 85 St. Georges Rd. Elephant and Castle. Bookings +44 (0) 020 7091 9650

http://www.independentdance.co.uk/

http://www.timeout.com/london/dance/event/139288/what-now.html

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 !