You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Another Chair Dance’ category.

296271_10151614017452829_1163075580_n

Trio Collective is presenting Another Chair Dance at Vibe Gallery on 14th June.

Join us for an evening showcase of new works by young contemporary artists. Experience an eclectic mix of music, dance and performance art works in a relaxed gallery environment.

Tickets £3

Drinks available at the gallery’s bar.

For the full programme, please visit:  http://www.facebook.com/events/533621283340703

Advertisements
Trio_03 HD
 
 
Trio Collective will be performing Another Chair Danceat circuit 2013.

 
***
 
 
‘circuit’ is an exciting and free event showcasing new contemporary performance and Live Art. Bringing together practitioners, programmers and audiences, it provides the opportunity to see new performance and network.

 
Sunday 9th June 2013, 12-5pm, at De Montfort University, Leicester
Performances by Jack Britton, Rosana Cade, SC Durkin, Ehsan Gill, Robert Hardaker, mingbeast, Irresponsible Decorators and Trio Collective. 

6pm onwards:  Informal networking and attendance at performance festival Hatch: Scratch at Embrace Arts, Leicester

 
Confirmed professionals offering feedback are Nathaniel Miller (Artist/Hatch), Michaela Butter (Embrace Arts, Leicester), Aaron Wright (Live Art Development Agency), Helena Goldwater (Artist/Senior Lecturer at De Montfort University) and Rosie Garton (Zoo Indigo).

 
Please see our website for further information. http://circuitfestival2013.yolasite.com/

 
Or for further information contact Helena Goldwater, Senior Lecturer in Drama, De Montfort University:hgoldwater@dmu.ac.uk

 
Location details: PACE building, De Montfort University, Richmond Street, Leicester LE1 1BH
The PACE building is number 26 on the Campus Map.

 
We look forward to seeing you there.

 
************
Supported by De Montfort University and the Live Art Development Agency

Trio: A Self-Interview is a performance that takes the form of a self-interview of the collective, which acts as a mode for questioning, understanding and performing our collaboration. The text is based on several self-interviews that took place during our creative process and served as methodological tools for our performances. The performance derives from texts developed in June 2009 and in April 2012, therefore making explicit a gap in both our personal and collective memory, as well as interrogating our collaborative process through past, present and future times.

We will discuss issues arising from our collaboration including the relationship between talking and doing, different modes of communication, misunderstandings and failures, responsibility and decision-making. The members of the collective are both interviewers and interviewees –exchanging roles and seeking identities. Questioning issues of authorship and non-hierarchical working structures, we are trying to define and organise the fluid boundaries that exist within our modes of production.

Seeking alternative ways to work together (not always being able to be at the same place at the same time), we have formed a virtual rehearsal space that acts as a platform for collaborative performance practice. The resulting blog is a curious archive. It flattens the perception of time as a linear development and presents it as fragmented and incomplete. It gives the illusion of Trio as a coherent entity (we are all on here together), but has yet to overcome its differences and inconsistencies.

Conference Presentations:

4 May 2012: Symposium ON COLLABORATION at Middlesex University, London

http://mdxoncollaboration.blogspot.co.uk/

15 May 2012: CADRE Research Student Conference 2012 ON PERFORMATIVITY at the University of Wolverhampton

http://phdconference.wordpress.com/

30 July 2012: In Dialogue Symposium at Nottingham Contemporary – with a special performance by Michelle Lynch on Skype

http://indialogue2012.wordpress.com

 

 

This Thursday, 8th Dec, Trio Collective will be performing for the last time this year at the Private View of Q-Art’s annual exhibition at APT Gallery (Deptford, London).
Another Chair Dance – A Duet will be on around 7.30pm but the space is open from 6-8pm. Come along and have a mulled wine with us!

http://www.q-artlondon.com/events/24-event/390-upcoming-event-q-arts-annual-exhibition-at-apt-gallery-thursday-8th-december

To book tickets press Here

“Another Chair Dance” incorporates dance, installation, text and video. Three performers move in front of three laptops where several “sitting performances” are reproduced. Instead of learning the choreographies the dancers resist rehearsal choosing to copy the movement from the videos.
Building upon pre-existing works, “Another Chair Dance” is an unsettling, funny and playful piece, which reflects a response to different contexts of space, time and bodies and the memory they evoke.
“Another Chair Dance” has been presented in London in Q-Art Convenors and in Parallax 01

  • The economy of means (3 bodies, 3 chairs, 3 laptops) versus the resulting dynamics of all the elements is really effective. Really like the idea of choreography through (video) editing.

The time lag from the act of copying really makes me think about choreography (/editing) as something that exists pre-performance. And the play of the sequence of choreography, rehearsal, performance etc could be interesting?

  • I like it, I feel that the two people on the right were watching a different video from the left – but at the same time there was a dialogue. Don’t laugh but I thought you girls were watching Bruce Lee. J
  • Firstly I was preoccupied with how accurately the movements were being reproduced – then I thought about the physical work involved in making work is never usually seen.
  • The most interesting aspect for me is how the 3 performers sometimes have similar movements at certain times even though each seem to be absorbed in one’s own movements (despite the 3 being situated in such close proximity in the same space) I wonder about the deliberate extent of synchronicity in the choreography.

Perhaps the dressing of the performers could be colour coded or standardized to make the performance visually more engaging? J

  • How do I know there’s anything on the screen?! Response – Reflecting? Or imitating?

Mimicking

Puppets

Eyes

  • MORE CHAIRS PLEASE

WHAT HAPPENS WITH THEM ON YOUR LAP?

  • Should be able to see something of what you are looking at on screens.

More physical movements have more impact.

Facially expressive parts less convincing.

Perhaps more narrative/episodic movements might be effective. And then one relates to impacts on another.

Liked chaotic aspect.

Reminded me in parts of ritual prayer.

Microsoft kinect-feed movements back onto program so one influences next.

  • Contrived. Whether this is the intention (quite possibly) or not in the movement.
  • The set created atmosphere of studying room (?)

The dance was feeling of restricted..

  • I felt the dance was very physical and gave me the chance to observe and make the connections myself. I thought it was a human acting in a sort of cathartic exorcism like a ROBBOT. It engaged me completely. The way it was performed each face had an expression. The silence left me FIXED and trying to guess if you had rehearse or not. A DANCE LIKE THE TARANTELA.
  • For me the most interesting aspect of the performance was the isolation of the performers because usually dance in groups is associated with interaction and synchronization. In the occasional parts were the movement of the different performers were in sync it seems that it was by chance rather than arrangement which further added to the sense of isolation. It was very successful!
  • Really loved it! Very engaging. Particularly the emotions.
  • It was great. It need not need exclamation. I found the text above a bit distracting as the performance worked without this. It made me think of many things, but none which can be described in one word! (Which I think is a good thing)
  • Quite removed from “dance”. Only the fact that you were obviously “dancers” meant it reared towards “dance”. With non-dancers the effect would be quite different. I was frustrated that the movement didn’t seem to mean anything – or at least we can’t see any meaning. It’s fascinating that we don’t know what you are copying or even if you are copying anything or if your movements are choreographed or accidental.
  • Individuality, variance,
  • Made me extremely aware of my movements.

Made me see actions/movements differently –how many are forced? How many are natural? (Both in the performance and in real life)

Felt like a sequence of events broken down to only the movements

Faces have “a life of their own”

Puppets dragged alone by the screen.

  • I became quite conscious of my own seated position and a little uncomfortable in how static I felt.
  • Is this questionnaire to create data for your research, or is it a parody of a feedback process conducted during your performance? Or something else? I didn’t see any text or video (unless this is the text?) We have to consider that there may or may not be a video or set of videos. I often mistrust claims made for a piece of work (as in “is an unsettling and playful piece which…”) do you parody this practice of introducing work with claims about what it does? Or is this a genuine attempt to pre-empt how I experience the piece, for example, I am expected to find it funny and that emotional response is assumed before I can make my response or form of judgment about whether it evokes memories or makes me laugh. Maybe I am not unsettled. Am I wrong?
  • The ROSSAS ROUTINE! Knowing about it kind of spoiled it for me, but I think it would ‘ve been interesting from the ‘unknowing; point of view.
  • I was thinking about Beckett while watching (not meaning your work is derivative) making me think about the isolation of each performer, from the audience as well as form each other. Seemed quite tragic in that sense that individuals were not able to communicate with the person next to them or even look at them – the communication goes form laptop to performer. Brought up ideas about interaction with computers at work and at home. Sharing space but not really sharing. Someone said “electronic puppets” – very resonant for me a sinister notion of the body being controlled by an outside agent, lacking agency itself. Thank you.
  • That would be more engaging if the videos you were copying from will be screens on the background and visible for audience. Interesting, but difficult to follow and concentrate for a long time, as there is no sound / plot to build a connection with.

“Philosophy simply puts everything before us, nor deduces anything. — Since everything lies open to view there is nothing to explain” (Philosophical Investigations 126)

Philosophy as therapy diagnoses our conceptual ills. Symptomatic of such ills is intractable debate, and if we find ourselves in such a situation, then we need philosophy. Or art.

Conceptual art perhaps better exemplifies the presentation of conceptual difficulty – certainly at least because presentation has been one of the specialities of art. I don’t mean to say that art is better at getting the point across in general – the potential precision and explicit nature of philosophical discourse is unrivalled, in its own way. What I mean is that successful presentation of an idea should elicit audience engagement, and engaging people is what art is good at (this is an armchair empirical statement: lots of people go to look at art, not many people read philosophy).

So, assuming that conceptual art is good at presenting conceptual problems, then what can we aim our art at?

Imagine three performers copying the movements shown in a series of dances shown to them on a screen. They do not see whole performances of works – only sections from them, so it would be very hard for someone to recognise all or even most of the sources.

They are ‘reading’ the dances in the sense that they see the movements and attempt to copy them, and given each performer’s history, training, emotional state, commute to the performance venue…. they will colour what they see just as different people will read things in different ways and that will colour each reading. (This is perhaps the point of having three performers – the differences make this aspect more obvious.) They are ‘reading’ and not ‘interpreting’ because we would normally reserve the latter term for a process involving much more creative input from the performer, perhaps even workshops or rehearsals. Instead it is closer to exact copying, there is less creative input, but of course there is some, so it’s not ‘copying’.

It is not a ‘reconstruction’ of the works because we only see extracts.

It is not a ‘quotation’ because normally when we quote something we intend to bring some of that meaning from that which we are quoting into what we are doing. This is not what is happening here because the extracts are so short – actions in dance performances are a little like lines from poems, they depend heavily on the context they are in for meaning, by shearing off so much of that context we cannot pretend to be quoting because we are not bringing enough of that contextual meaning with us.

For similar reasons it is not ‘plagiarism’ either – though it would’ve been perhaps if more ‘meaning’ could be transmitted for the movements replicated are not attributed to their ‘authoring’ choreographers.

And it’s not ‘reading’ either. The act of reading does not normally draw attention to itself in this way. I mean in the way that I can expend a few hundred words saying what is not going on. Perhaps that is just simply because we normally read books.

And at this point we can return to Wittgenstein. What we’ve encountered here is a conceptual problem. Placed before us is a question as to what is exactly going on? What process are the performers engaged in? And the answer is there too: something a lot like various other processes, but also different from them in some way that seems significant enough for it not to be quite that process.

This is significant in an artform that has for a long time lost most of its history in a way that doesn’t occur elsewhere. Choreography died with the times they were in. Not in terms of the loss of contextual meaning that happens to other art, but a much more blunt loss: when the people were dead, no-one knew what the movements were anymore. There have been attempts at encoding movement, but it is hardly the equivalent of the existence of the actual painting, or, an audio recording of a piece of music say. And this latter is an interesting point of departure – the audio recording brings in commoditisation, author- and ownership, and copyright.

If a sequence of movements were reproduced in the context of a theatre or similar venue with an audience, what relationship would this have with the choreographer? But what then happens when I recreate other movements I’ve seen? Even when I do it unconsciously as humans so often do?

Matthew Mead