here/there/then/now C h e r y l S t o c k

with thanks to V a n e s s a M a f e

S t e p h e n S t a n f I e l d I a n H u t s o nQ U T c r e a t i v e i n d u s t r i e s b r i s b a n e a u s t r a l i a

site, collaboration, interdisciplinary performance

pillars in dialogue with floating objects

the inviting void of the black box

deep crevices with no purpose

then

now

there

here stairs to nowhere

where textured memories embedded in stone and metal merge with human presences

BACKGROUND

bringing together of 10 independent artists in dance, music, theatre, design, visual, media arts

responding to and evoking four sites inside the Brisbane Powerhouse

development of concept 2001rehearsals March to May 2002performances 15-19 May 2002

supported by Arts Queensland, QUT Creative Industries, Brisbane Powerhouse, Ausdance

PURPOSE

• support creative partnerships, established and new, in an interdisciplinary project

• work together on a common concept that allows for personal aesthetic positions and specialist art form processes and outcomes

• explore flexible performance platforms and theatricalise site-specific work

• investigate ways of creating narrative through fragmented intertextuality

• re-engage audiences in live performance through choices on how to view the works and from where

CONCEPT

• 3 discrete performance installations, each with their own aesthetic and communicative intention culminating in a fourth site where memories of the first three coalesce

• promenade journey of subliminal meanings through multiple viewpoints

• construction and deconstruction of narrative revealed and concealed by the embodied experience of site

• the body as site and repository of its own performing and lived histories combined with the inherent and imagined meanings and associations of the former industrial site of the Powerhouse

artists…. chosen for the unique qualities each could bring to the project

dynamic and supportive mix of experienced mature artists and emerging artists

high level of expertise in their field(s)

generous approach to sharing ideas and processes

independent and curious

committed, creative, resourceful

diverse in art forms/practices and response to the sites

four teams of new and old partnerships with crossover of some personnel in each team

CONCEPTS OF SITE IN PERFORMANCE

• ‘a site-specific performance defines itself ‘through properties, qualities or meanings produced in specific relationships between an “event” and a position it occupies’.

• the integral link between performance and place is ‘articulated through interdisciplinary practices’

• the creative process in site-specific performance acts out a “writing over” the site…’

(Kaye: 2000, 1-8)

WRITING OVER THE SITE

• the site is like a palimpsest in that is written over, effacing the original ‘writing’

• in the case of here/there/then/now the sites were written over with graffiti, so we were often ‘writing over’ the write over

• a site-specific work ‘inevitably operates in anticipation or in recollection of the places it acts out’

• ‘site-specific performance attempts to define itself in the very sites it is caught in the process of erasing’

Kaye 2000: 11, 220

erasure

ephemerality

‘one of the beauties of live performance is that it ignites a space and time and then disappears’

Meredith Monk

SITES of here/there/then/now

Focus of the work were the following sites:

•heightened theatrical and dramatic space of here•isolated entrapped enclosure of there•framed but open space of then•architectural extended space of now

shared space of memory concealed, revealed, fragmented, disturbed by light

here

stairs to nowhere

heightened theatrical and dramatic space

here stairs to nowhere

here - the familiar, safe, protected where fire is

power and warmth

- a dungeon where risk becomes danger

- a shadowy realm of dreams and memories

- a sharing of private moments publicly revealed

- the animal in the zoo; fascinating yet dangerous

Performer/creator: Brian LucasSound artist: Brett Collery Visual artist: Ian HutsonLighting designer: Jason Organ

A study of contrasts around victim and aggressor

deep crevices with no purpose

isolated entrapped enclosure

there

there deep crevices with no purpose

An Australian dancer and a Thai singer explore there • barred vertical site of shadows and blinding light• place of confinement and entrapment• enclosed intimate world of no exits

through dance/physical performance with acoustic unaccompanied voice and projected imagery, investigating reactions to situations of extreme stress when confronted with confinement.

Choreographer/performer: Leanne RingelsteinComposer/singer/performer: Nok ThumrongsatVisualisation: Ian HutsonLighting Designer: Jason Organ

then

pillars in dialogue with floating objects

framed but open space

then pillars in dialogue with floating objects

then• theme of the “still-life” as its organising

principle • distorted beauty and fragmentation of the

body and sound in space• heightened colour and unconventional

framing reflecting a Baroque sensibility• a platform for the interaction of industrial

site and theatrical setting

Choreographer/director: Vanessa MafeDancer: Ko-Pei LinSound composer: Stephen StanfieldInstallation artist: Jondi KeaneLighting designer: Jason Organ

contemplate the performer in a still life of objects, floating, hovering

now

the inviting void of the black boxarchitectural extended space

nowthe inviting void of the black box

• place of multiple entries and exits• performative dialogue of intersecting solos• emerging relationships of bodies and kinetic

pathways• visual and aural connections to the sites left

behind

now treats the theatre as architectural site housing a sparsely fragmented repository for what has gone before

Concept and direction: Cheryl StockPerformers/collaborators: Ko-Pei Lin, Brian Lucas, Leanne Ringelstein, Nok ThumrongsatComposer: Stephen StanfieldVisuals: Ian HutsonLighting Designer: Jason Organ

the viewer’s relationship to site

wide range of people from arts aficionados to those who had never attended contemporary performance

led from site to site in a promenade journey by guides

able to move around the sites but not within them thus changing points of view and relationship to the performing body; looking down, in, across rather than at the performers

mobility assists in making causal links between the sites and their stories drawn progressively through the building and into its depths

COLLABORATION

“collaboration is a "catalytic process" used in interactive relationships among individuals working toward a mutually defined, concrete vision or outcome”.

Idol and West, 1991 

Since a creative project entails working with ideas that seem new or original, or transforming existing ideas and concepts in fresh ways it also relies on the harnessing of group innovation and creativity.

THEORIES OF GROUP CREATIVITY

• a group’s creative potential depends on level of diversity in the group; cognitive & intuitive

• relationship between diversity and creativity includes context, decision making strategies, leadership issues, feedback mechanisms

• importance of ‘authentic dissent’ (diversity of opinion)

• danger in early consensus or giving into conformity pressure

• involves divergent and convergent processes Nijstad & Paulus, 2003: 326-339

KEY AREAS OF CREATIVE COLLABORATIONS

• Communication skills• Developing a positive environment• Keeping decision making moving along• Recognising needs of individual members of

collaborative team• Resolving conflict and risk

Pritzker & Runco, 1997: 115-141

COLLABORATIONan artist view

“Collaborations, at their best, are profound learning experiences that empower the collaborators to expand their visions and their creativity, give them courage, critique and support to move into areas of work they might otherwise not venture into, and provide exciting spaces for experimentation. At their worst, they allow some collaborators to colonise others and this is a most disempowering experience!”

Marion D’Cruz (2003:77)Malaysian choreographer/artist

COLLABORATIVE DIMENSIONS

transactional/task • common creative agendas which allow for diversity and cross over of practices, approaches and ideas • acceptance of leadership and shared responsibility• discipline based confidence and expertise• ‘a communicative relationship’ (Grau, 1992:19) - between collaborative partners, within the work and with the audience • dependability• proactive and reactive process• participation at all levels of the project including budgets, marketing, scheduling etc

relational/creative• developing interpersonal relationships of mutual respect and interactive support • valuing specialist art form differences in language, aesthetics, processes, outcomes • consideration• valuing and accepting difference which encourages new avenues for understanding• positive / affirmative behaviours

COLLABORATIVE CHALLENGES in here/there/then/now

• sudden and tragic death of a key member resulting in a 8 month postponement of the project

• an experienced choreographer/dancer who had done the concept mapping for one site was offered and accepted full-time work

• personal political agenda of one member became an undermining and obstructive force in the early stages of the process, creating unacceptable tension

• personal artistic agenda of a lead team member resulted in non-engagement with the site and therefore a threat to the integrity of the project which was site driven in its concept

Four of the original ten team members were replaced through the following circumstances:

views of participating artists

Vanessa Mafe - choreographer/director then

old and new collaborative relationships

with experienced visual artist Jondi Keane:• both experienced artists with a long history of collaboration and

open to investigate ideas• had already established images as the foundation for a common

language

with young dancer Ko-Pei Lin:• guiding and mentoring role to encourage interactive participation• need to establish a way of working together and then identifying

“breakthrough” creative experiences beyond the usual dancer/choreographer relationship

views of participating artists

Stephen Stanfield, composer then & now

Differing collaborative processesthen• initial discussions of concept and viewing of images and movement

of work in progress• composition starting point was the concept of ‘still life and decay’ • composition and choreographic processes were almost entirely

independent from one another

now• score constructed of transformed material from other sites, with new

elements idiosyncratic to the fourth installation. • past sounds were manipulated and recontextualised in time and

space creating a sonic-wash of fragmented, distorted, and distant memories…

• collaborative process was quite organic with the music and choreography developing symbiotically

views of participating artists

Cheryl Stock - project concept/directiondirector/choregrapher now

• assumed role of director / coordinator as conceiver of project• interactive communication with all collaborators crucial aspect of

role• ‘participant/observer’ in first three sites; no primary creative role• collaborative consultative process involved overview integrating

visual, theatrical, auditory elements, and links between sites• creative process of now dependent on deconstructed narratives and

images from other 3 sites; fluid , morphing between created and creating images, objects, artists

• blurred and indecipherable ‘ownership’ of resultant work

for the artists:opportunities for expanded dialoguerenewed investigative practices in the artsbuilding of artistic communities emergence of more layered approach to own practices

for the audience:collaboration between performer and audience results in “meaning-making”, ‘where the performative text is the reading, and where the emphasis is on process, on meaning as becoming’

Sandra Kemp, in Campbell, 1996:9

COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES

DANCE AS A BASIS FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION

• space / design / shape – the architecture• rhythm / flow / time – duration• dynamics / force / energy – texture• body / instrument - medium

elements of a discipline/artform applied to collaboration form the basis of a shared interdisciplinary language:

Dance language, in common with music and visual arts, is poetic rather than prose-like because of its ‘multiple, symbolic and elusive meanings’ (Hanna, 1997:147)

INTERDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE• involves collaboration between distinct disciplines with different

approaches, viewpoints and forms of expression

• enables specialists to find the spaces between their individual practices in which to discover a shared creative/performative language based on common principles

• entails a change in processes of creation, observation and reflection

• an ongoing journey of discovery, questioning, and discussion

• requires multiple interpretations and knowledge of more than one discipline

• allows what is there to form the interdisciplinary language being created for each particular project

• creates multi-layered narratives since ‘reading, watching, listening…assumes that a story is being told’ (Kemp, 1997:172)

INTERDISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES

• establishes common working ground between disciplines

• generates open lines of exchange

• questions and offers alternatives for the conventions, vocabulary and assumptions inherent in each discipline

• defines one’s own artistic practice more clearly inside and outside the discipline

• has the potential to shift, connect differently with, and transform one’s particular practice

• broadens one’s knowledge of other approaches and opens up new possibilities personally and creatively

here/there/then/now

CREATIVE AND PRODUCTION TEAMConcept/direction: Cheryl Stock

Collaborating artists: Brett Collery, Ian Hutson, Jondi Keane, Ko-Pei Lin, Brian Lucas, Vanessa Mafe, Jason Organ, Stephen Stanfield, Nok Thumrongsat

Project manager / production coordinator: Kyle Petersen

Lighting/site coordination: Jason Organ

Sound coordination: Stephen Stanfield

Stage manager: Ryan Colbran

Wardrobe: Bianca Sevil

Program design: Ian Hutson, Pam Koger

CRICOS CODE:00213J