My interview by Dominic Johnson

Dominic Johnson, from the Queen Mary University of London, is interested in work around touch and one-to-one performances. In 2012 he interviewed Adrian Howells, a well-known one-to-one performer. Unfortunately, Adrian Howells died before the publication of his interview*.

In another tone, my classmate and I were asked to answer some of the questions of the interview, as artists (or artists-to-be).

The interview

 

  1. Speaking as an artist and also as an audience member, what do you think makes an effective performance? What do you look in performance?

Both as an artist and as an audience member, I am looking for images. Images can be optical, visual or audiovisual, when considering the colors, the lights, the costumes, the music – with all the factors that will make the performance a spectacle. Spectacle can be different from a simple view of something and certainly it can be different for different point of views. For me a spectacle is always unexpected, it is unique and it always attracts attention or interest. It is images that are, also, transformed easily to experiences, such as memories, messages within the performance and feelings. An effective performance for me is something I will remember. And definitely something that I will want to remember.

  1. Have you yourself been concerned that the departures you have undertaken somehow make the work unreadable or unrecognizable as aesthetic projects?

My background is focused on dance, theatre and music (piano and voice). I feel that all these contribute to an understandable performance. Even if I separate them, I always try to find this element that is going to make the performance readable. At least one element, for the audience to have something to take back home. If I know I can achieve that, I won’t be concerned.

During my MA Choreography semesters I got challenged with choreographical methods I considered unreadable for the audience, such as improvisation-based choreography and performance art. I was always thinking that “the audience will not like it, because they won’t understand it”. One thing I learnt is that the audience doesn’t know what they like, they rarely know what they understand, but they do know that they are there, in the theatre, waiting to watch something that will change their lives and make them think and feel closer to the dancers.

  1. Can you tell me about how you develop and refine the aesthetic aspects of your work?

First of all, I am inspired by things I want to say. For example, my audition videos were dance-related autobiographical stories. Maybe the music will help me in that. Or maybe I will have some criteria, as to re-stage/re-choreograph one of the Seven Easy Pieces of Marina Abramovic. Moreover, I always want my dancers to be good actors. I prefer them not doing a triple pirouette, if they can work with their face and body expression. I always want them to have stamina and never look exhausted. I dedicate a good amount of rehearsals to help them improve their stamina and acting-training. Then, it is also my touch, what I always want to see in a choreography: a story. Maybe a humorous one or a powerful one. And if I see that, I can then create a spectacle, with lights, costumes and beautiful dancers/ story-tellers.

The piece I am currently  working on, “Re:patterning” , can be considered unreadable, as we said before. The dancers have understood that the stamina is very important in this piece. They have given their own meaning to their lines and their movement. They have even given different meanings to the different tasks. I don’t consider the work as “dance choreography”, though the dancers are engaged with some. It can be even criticised as simple and “just fine”, but there is something behind it. There is a message I want the audience to grasp. There are characters that I want the audience to find similar to themselves. And I want them to discover that there are some rituals and endurance practices that they, too, go through simply every day.

dancers

  1. What is the place of the contract – social or unwritten- in your performance? How do you deal with unwritten agreements or limitations, which all performances potentially entertain?

To be honest, I would never create an environment where the audience would feel uncomfortable. But this is something I cannot always control. I encourage the dancers to feel uncomfortable sometimes, only in the way that they could achieve something for themselves, like climbing on an unstable door (with all the necessary precautions of course), or try some out-of-comfort-zone sensual moves. However, I always respect their limits and always come up with other moves that they will be proudly executing.

As for the audience, I believe in the distance and the comfort. We live in a society where we have to be touched to be liked. I find this important, because, in order to achieve, we have to show our flesh and even remove our boundaries and become something we are not. Do we want to get promoted or famous or land a job? Most of the times, we are to be touched. But, what if we don’t like to be touched? Physically or in social media or by friends or by strangers? Only in distance you can make the decision “do I want to approach or not?”. Approach physically or emotionally or mentally or psychologically. There are performances that on purpose want to test these limits; where people go willingly to pass that test. I want the audience to approach the work in their own way. And it will be a willing decision, I assure you.

*Johnson, D. (2012) The Kindness of Strangers: An Interview with Adrian Howells. Performing Ethos, 3(2) 173-190

Three is a crowd…

One-to-one performances can be difficult. They are rather difficult to set, too. There are the ethical implications and then there are all these elements that have to be connected or else something is missing and the engagement will be lost.

I tried to create a connecting, interactive dance environment for a term A module and it slightly backfired. I just was not ready yet to construct an environment and a choreography that would be engaging, intimate and maybe touching.

After all the readings, there is a word worth keeping in mind while creating a choreography or a performance: connection. Connection makes the work.[1]

But then, there are some other words that appear in the readings’ vocabulary:

  • COERCION
  • INTROJECTION: the unconscious adoption of another’s thoughts and ideas
  • HUMANITY
  • INTIMACY

All work their way more or less to the connection, the collaboration between the performer and the participant.

And this is something that happens only in a one-to-one performance, as Adrian Howells says[2] , while he completely disagrees with the theatrical performances of 700 people watching him and connecting with him

Well, I disagree with him.

“Personal insecurities and digressions have the potential to produce
more intimate connections to the “integrity experience”,
through “immediacy”, “relationship”, “awareness” and “attention”1”.

A crowded theatrical or dance performance can create intimate connections because of the integrity experience, through the immediacy, the relationship, the awareness and the attention, and mainly because of the personal insecurities that the audience carries while sitting in front of the stage.

Undoubtedly, crowded performances differ from one-to-one performances in the aspect of the safety and trust among the audience members (higher in crowded performances, when they enjoy a show with friends and relatives) and the self-consciousness of the participants (higher in a one-to-one performance, where they desire to “give a good audience”1).

There is a connection made during a live performance. How intimate it is, is negotiable. However, it would seem inappropriate to flatten so many performers’, dancers’, actors’ work and effort to create emotion, to transmit a message to or to inspire their audience.

Following that, Marina Abramovic appeared to disagree with me by saying: “Theatre is fake (…). The knife is not real, the blood is not real and the emotions are not real. Performance is just the opposite: the knife is real, the blood is real and the emotions are real” (O’Hagan 2010:32)2.

Answering that, Simon Murray and John Keefe in their book “Physical Theatres:  critical introduction” (2007) write that “the real never went away and never goes away. Such debates can become facile in their danger of removing the real from discourse, experience from rhetoric; making the lived experience of the body a mere plaything for theoreticians’ ping-pong”.[3]

After that, I’m thinking about the poor Stanislavski and all his theory on “becoming” the character, the training exercises, the methodology and the pain actors have endured when finally reaching the stage of “becoming the character”. I’m thinking about them performing – actually performing– with tears and sweat and blood. How fake and artificial can this be?

I’m wondering, is it because they don’t use the knife for real? Is it because they don’t cut themselves for real? And I’m wondering more, should actors harm themselves every time they go on stage so that the audience see something real? What if their characters get killed? What if their characters lose their virginity or get raped? What if they have to be hung? What if the director is artistically mental and wants to see blood everywhere and the actors suffer from HIV and it is harmful for their personal lives? Then what?

And this leads my thoughts to ancient Greek tragedies where death or blood battles or anything harmful was just narrated and never performed on stage because of the ethics and the ennoblement of the writers’ work.

It is a peculiar era we are living nowadays. An era where nudity, sex and massacres are okay to be watched on TV and cinema and then transferred on stage and books and then becoming a reality, which we have to accept if we want to be part of this society, if we want to be “liked” and accepted (or better approved?) .

So, then, what is real and what is fake? What is truly intimate without being coerced?

Let’s create some more definitions and we can talk about it in a few years.

– – – – – –

[1] Heddon, D., Iball, H. and Zeriham, R. (2012) Come Closer: Confessions of Intimate Spectators in One to One Performance. Contemporary Theatre Review, 22(1) 120 – 133.
[2] Johnson, D. (2012) The Kindness of Strangers: An Interview with Adrian Howells. Performing Ethos, 3(2) 173-190.
[3] Murray, S. & Keefe, J. (2007). Physical Theatres: A critical introduction. Routledge: London & New York. p.60