OPENLAB sessions – Summer Term 2018

OL_Spring with water mark 3

After the spring comes the summer and for this coming Summer Term, we have a new lineup of OPENLAB sessions.

Here you are with the dates for your diary:

Friday 6 April, 10 am-1pm – A ‘Facilitated OL‘ with Danai Pappa: Mine, Yours, Theirs: Exchanging Movements
Friday 20 April, 10 am-12 pm – A ‘White Canvas’
Friday 11 May, 10 am-1 pm – A ‘Facilitated OL‘ with Carolyn Roy:
Companions and Strangers
Friday 25 May, 10 am-12 pm – A ‘White Canvas’
Friday 8 June, 10 am-1 pm – A ‘Facilitated OL‘ with Galit Criden: The Primal Body
Friday 22 June, 10 am-12 pm – A ‘White Canvas’
Friday 6 July, 10 am-1 pm – A ‘Facilitated OL‘ with Mira Hirtz: Explorations on the Suspicious Body


Remember:

OPENLAB sessions are open to any performers: dancers, musicians, actors and anyone interested in presence and awareness in performance.

The facilitators of OPENLAB are also participants “in” the session and participants can propose their ideas for a future session. If you’d like to know more about this, come to one of our sessions or email Antonio de la Fe (antonio.delafeguedes@gmail.com).

The sessions function on a pay-what-you-can contribution basis to cover expenses and as an incentive for the facilitator of the session. We suggest a contribution of £7 for the 3-hour long sessions (‘Facilitated OL’ sessions) and of £5 for the 2-hour long ones (‘White Canvas’).

Chisenhale Dance Space
64-84 Chisenhale Road
London
E3 5QZ

Advertisements

OPENLAB sessions on Friday 11th September 2015: “Out with the eyes – A sensorial smorgasbord” with Manou Koreman

openlab 11 Sep_1

Last Friday we re-took the weekly sessionS in the studio at Chisenhale Dance Space, and for this re-start of OL’s academic year we had the pleasure of enjoying of Manou’s proposition to have a long session during which we would be blind-folded… e basta così.

In the studio we were Manou, Thelma Sharma and myself.

I have done many different types of sightless explorations and taken many classes, workshops and creative process in which I have been asked or I have chosen to be devoid of the visual input.

However, you can’t never expect what is going to happen. I think most people tend to fall by expecting to have a similar experience to the one they had in a previous encounter with the blindfold. But the expectations are rarely fulfilled, whether for better or for worst.

It is hard to put into words what a blindfolded experience was for you. The raw stream of sensorial input and stream of thoughts and emotions that arise from them are normally very vague when remembered after; even if at the moment felt extremely intense, or even transcendentally profound at times.

However, blindfolding feels to me such a great practice to put into tuning the set of skills that can make your performing richer.

This session with Manou didn’t felt any different in a way but because of that also felt such an important work to do in the studio.

However, my tendencies where at a point overturned by something that Manou suggested. My experiences with blindfolding have had always to do with getting to a much more primal state of mind. I think this is influenced by my previous experiences with authentic movement, which has its roots in psychoanalysis, and looks for the person practicing it to follow her or his inner impulse(s).

Contrary to that other approach, at a certain point I manage to hear a suggestion from Manou to try to do any activities that we would normally would do with the eyes open. My mind suddenly changes from a subconscious-attitude to a superconscious-attitude toward the exploration. And my choices where to write something (picture at the top of this blog) and to take pictures (at the bottom). Both things I managed to do without having to even take the blindfold to find what I needed to find (it was handy that I am a bit addict at using my phone), and the result of both pictures and text impressed me… in an unassuming way, but when I saw them I was quite happy with them even if the are just what they are.

IMG_1002 IMG_1004 IMG_1005 IMG_1001 IMG_1006 IMG_1012 IMG_1011 IMG_1010 IMG_1007 IMG_1009 IMG_1019 IMG_1016 IMG_1014 IMG_1013

OPENLAB sessions on Friday 19th June 2015: Intimacy and Space – Exploration of the Performing Body

Intimacy and space – exploration of the performing body

OPENLAB, 19th June

This OPENLAB session was an invitation to ask questions regarding the performing body. Exploring intimacy and space was a suggested perspective from which to explore. Looking at the performing body as being observed and at the same time knowing that I am being observed from outside. Negotiating between inner focus and awareness to the body movement in the external space.

As a performer there is a constant awareness to the accuracy in which a movement conveys an intention. From this point the performer might negotiate between inner tension and its manifestation through the body movement in the external space. This inner tension is invisible and we explored the process in which it transforms towards a visible movement. A constant navigation between inner and external space might determine the mind’s role or the mind’s tuning within the performing body.

Another aspect that might be considered is the tension between inner focus as intimate or hidden and on the contrary the physical movement in the external space as an act of revealing the hidden. Is it then possible that while the performing body reveals an intention and share it with the observer- an intimate moment is created?

During the exploration each participant connected with a particular way of sensing and experiencing the private and intimate. While staying with eyes closed and visualising myself observing myself from outside- I ask a question regarding knowing that I am present and whether I should do anything about it?

The tension between inside and outside and between sensing and seeing suggested an engagement of the senses and in a way it suggested the three dimensionality of the performing body and its negotiation in and within the space. Being present in space and time.

How near and how far can I extend my spatial awareness and therefore maybe the boundaries between inside out, hidden and visible, intangible and tangible? Exploring the boundaries of the performing body and mind that allows me to become one with others in the shared space.

This session was a suggested exploration of the body as an instrument through breath, sensation and senses.

Revital Snir

Thoughts after OPENLAB’s session on Friday 13th March 2015: “A Sequence of Events: Doing, Thinking… and Then Watching… and Then… ”

by Sharon Drummond – Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/)

“#ds353 – Uninspired” by Sharon Drummond – Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/)

Now and then I have to continue asking myself, “why did I start OPENLAB and what is its present purpose.”

As a shared laboratory for self-professional (or self-personal) development, OL has changed because the constellations of people visiting and participating always changes and because we all change throughout our processes as performing artists (or ‘performing’ individuals).

In answering those questions above, welcoming at the same time the fact that everything changes, I come to notice things. Asking and answering those questions taket time and effort but, at the same time, help me to realise which things, from those I notice, could be addressed to help the lab to change accordingly.

Does the lab still covers my needs? What about other people’s needs? Does it create a space within which my curiosity is able to dwell and reverb?

I guess it all comes in cycles…

Today’s session started with me saying something like this:

I want to propose a sequence of events; this events being proposed as different activities that would frame our practice but that are not meant to serve as the content of our practice. This may be a contradiction on itself, but I’d like to offer a frame which doesn’t frame you (and maybe I should have added, “and it’s up to you to make sense within that frame without trying to understand the frame as a series of tasks to understand” but I didn’t add it).

I think my way of dealing with this idea of offering a frame which doesn’t frame is important for me right now. I would like to offer a freedom that neither scares nor blocks, therefore a frame within which to operate, within which to orientate oneself, is necessary (or so I believe). At the same time, I think this frame has to offer a blank canvas, so there is still a relative space within which to get lost (even if just only at a smaller scale within the larger order of things).

I’m in the process of developing this. It will need some clarity in my intention and make mind space to sit and work it out… even if ti is a new template or draft, a new step within the ongoing work-in-progress in which I’m immersed.

I’m writing this after having had some correspondence with Laura Doehler about Shared Practice and OPENLAB and the ways we operate differently but with a common ethos and purpose.

With Laura’s permission I’d like to share some extracts from this. I am not entirely sure whether this will be interesting for you to read (the reality is I’m not entirely sure anything I write here is interesting for anyone to read but the important thing is that it’s written in case it ever becomes material of any interest for anybody).


 

Some words/thoughts that Laura shared with me:

Antonio’s lab is different [to the work we undertake in the Shared Training/Practice] but we like our differences – they accomplish each other – and we [have] ended up taking each others classes. Antonio has come during the Trip Encounter and we have been going to his lab. … We do get along very well and inspire each other with our work and research at the moment. I believe we would like a bit more of each others work because it works well together, I think.

The difference between our formats is that we, Shared Training/ Practice, propose a space where people follow their own enquiries entirely. Our facilitation lies in proposing different spatial and dynamic stages so that people spatially and dynamically share a journey, but HOW [this is done] is entirely up to them. We keep time as a means to encourage focus and we mention ‘palettes’ – which are like reminders on how time can be used in case people are at loss about how to access independent work and would like a little guide. It is pretty much the same every session, only that each facilitator slightly changes the kind of palette they propose – however, the palette is in the background so people can access it or leave it quite freely.

Antonio speaks his mind: his thoughts, his enquiries; and he encourages people to develop a moving body but also a moving mind – to not only follow is propositions, like one would in an improvisation class, but to consider and define a more personal enquiry about performance. However, it is still linked to his proposition of subject and, by talking it through, he continues to guide one’s journey. So when coming to Antonio’s class I still follow someone’s directions to quite a large extend. Although I enjoy his directions very much, and also I know I can make it my own at any time and I feel free to do so.
So, I suppose the degree of how much structure and guidance we propose, as well as how much independence we give, varies. However, the bottom line is: we [both] want people to use the time and space we provide to do research and develop in performance, to reflect on the why and how and what for, and we hope to do this regularly [emphasis added].

Those words from Laura triggered in me the following response:

It is true that OPENLAB and the Shared Practice/Training, which you [Doehler] and the girls [Fernanda Muñoz-Newsome, Tania Soubry and Anne-Gaëlle Thiriot] propose, are quite different… but I think they are two strategies with a very similar purpose.

[I think] I also try to propose a space where people follow their own enquiries entirely although I do it by creating a frame that frees them from having to figure out what (which could become haunting) and how (which could become very cerebral… although I welcome the cerebral too, yet there are ways and ways of being cerebral) and they can focus just on it… the doing, the performing. Maybe, I see it in this way because I think the enquiry that isn’t addressed so often for performers to undertake is on performing itself, and not necessarily on the subjects or content that would ‘tint’ their performing… but performing in all its possible forms… and in a way each person does its own idiosyncratic performing. This is the only way I can understand how to propose a self-directing training/practice for performers that will potentially feed their performing practice independently of whether they create their own work or they perform in works choreographed or just directed by others, improvising or performing set material, or anything in between [all of those].

Do I succeed? Probably not entirely but I don’t think I fail either. In any case, this question isn’t useful unless it allows us to continue to move forwards with our experiments.

When I have to chose the content for myself (when for example I followed your shared practice) this feels very difficult to me. For this reason, I like it but still I found it very difficult… I struggle with going into doing it and I used the time thinking about it, and it brings me to a place of performer as maker/choreographer/director/etcetera. I appreciate it and I found it useful, but I also know that I would find it more useful if I could go deeper into it by having more time… I would love to create also an environment that allows this, and that at the same time allows the possibility for individuals to exchange, to collaborate, to put themselves as a help for the others and not just develop their own work, but finding new ways of creating shared practices (not only in space and time, but in common knowledge).

I think this [creating an environment like this] will need resources, space and time, and the possibilities of the performers to be committed beyond to the feeling of what they feel they get immediately. Making things by yourself are time consuming and frustrating (learning has this potentiality to frustrate, when you can’t really do it). I think that if we want a space like that the performers will have to be paid for it… just a thought.

I think OPENLAB is a frame that enables a part of what I’d like to share within the limitations that a 2-hour long practice, once a week, has… I know that it’s very much about me talking and sharing my process ‘live’ and proposing it as a way for others to use it… or not, abuse it… or not, misuse it… or not, confuse it… or not, forget it… or not, manipulate it… or not, re-posses it… or not, distort it… or not, etc. but there is a constant and open invitation to any other person that comes to the lab to facilitate it too.

For me in the end what I want to share is also this state in which you can operate whether you’re told little or a lot about what you should be doing but that you make it work for yourself; daring to do even when you don’t know what you are doing or what you are ask about; learning to be OK with not knowing, not understanding, etc. and still make something out of it.

I’m still working on better ways to do this and I have a few ideas I want to try this year but this ideas will mean I need to sit down more mindfully and plan a bit.

I’m now losing track of what I’m trying to say so maybe I should stop.

I’m also thinking I could use this text to add in the OL’s archive.

To Change the Atmosphere: Is This Possible?

To change the atmosphere. Is this possible? Perhaps it is in the act of trying that something shifts in how one approaches this idea.

On March 6th, we strived to change the atmosphere. Not only to shape or choreograph the space, although this might have appeared to be the case, but to physically change the scientific make up of the room. A heavy task. But in trying to deeply understand this notion, I feel we got closer to it.

This began with acknowledging a sense of atmosphere inside us, the atmosphere within the body. What drives us to move, or just to remain upright suspended against gravity, how our thoughts meet inside.

We built up this idea by moving however we felt. For me, this brought up the question of judgment within recognising repetition of my own movement patterns. Antonio offered that to move with this frustration, is practising the same task, how you feel. Together, we followed Antonio’s thoughts to embrace natural pathways and open the mind to a place of receiving and offering. After all, we don’t know if changing a body’s atmosphere is a feasible task. But there’s something in this thought that makes me wonder about the choreographic or compositional nature of humans within societal groups, within countries, within the earth’s atmosphere. Could the term ‘creatures of habit’ be challenged with ‘creatures of composition’, in that we find solace in familiarity, but thrive on change?

Thoughts, thoughts, thoughts.

Eve Stainton

OPENLAB sessions on Friday 27th February and 6th March 2015: “Atmosphere(s) 1 & 2”

On Friday 27th of February I was in the studio with Inés Alonso. On Friday 6th of March I was in the studio with Eve Stainton. My proposition for both days was to explore the concept of atmosphere(s) within the setting of the OPENLAB sessions.

Obviously, the concept of atmosphere within art and performance isn’t new. In fact, my dictionary gives a 2nd definition of atmosphere as “the pervading tone or mood of a place, situation, or creative work,” and atmosphere is a term many dance artists use.

I have to say that I was twice unoriginal, because the notion of using atmospheres re-appeared in my practice after preparing with Robert Vesty an experimental piece, titled A Piece for Two (lovers), which we performed at the Dancing Economies conference at Royal Holloway, University of London, a few weeks ago.

Our piece was based on a question I asked Rob and which I set for him and myself as a choreographic challenge:

How could we, possibly, make a piece for two lovers; being one of them myself, and the other one my beloved partner…

A piece which is real, rather than a performative mannerism…

A piece which, therefore, has never been performed before…

A piece that doesn’t need to be rehearsed and that in fact takes both lovers by surprise, without being an improvised piece…

A piece that has a set choreography, yet at the same time it is different each time it is performed…

A piece that shows the full trust a lover has in his beloved and in the intentions behind his actions…

And, of course, a piece which isn’t longer than 15 min?

The idea behind (or before) this question was that we could secretly make scores for each other. Each score would be passed on to the other person in the form of a soundtrack to be listened to with headphones. Only this person would listen to the score made for her. This person having to be the interpreter of the score and doing so for the very first time at the same moment of the first performance of the piece.

I don’t want to go into great detail about A Piece for Two, but let’s simply say that the idea of making pieces that aren’t rehearsed but happen for the first time in front of an audience, and are not improvised at the same time, is one which lately entertains me. Making a soundtrack as a score is one of the possible methodologies to work around this concept and I can see the potential to make all kinds of unrehearsed choreographies following this method.

However, how can I make soundtracks which are both efficient and effective in the enabling of such pieces? The fact is that they need to be efficient and effective as these pieces are unrehearsed. These soundtracks as scores need to give as much information as possible in the minimum amount of time and, at the same time, they need to (more or less) successfully enable the execution of the actions that they direct.

So, coming back to the theme of the last two OPENLAB sessions; after performing A Piece for Two (lovers), Rob and I discussed how we had approached the challenge of making a score for the other. Both Rob and I used at different points music as background for the instructions we were giving to each other. Rob said that what he was trying to do by using sound was to create different kinds of atmospheres that affected laterally, i.e. tacitly or even unconsciously, my performance.

I am now considering how to make other soundtracks as choreographic scores and I’m wondering about how to maybe prepare a group performers to respond to atmospheric instructions, and what kind of instructions (maybe using sound/music is just one possibility) can be employed to create one atmosphere or another.

The last two OPENLAB sessions were, therefore, influenced by this. I proposed my interest with the idea of using atmospheres by trying to perceive them first.

My approach of exploring atmospheres was by bringing together the figurative meaning of the word atmosphere with its literal meaning.

a door, a man and space

“Door of the traveler” by B. S. Wise
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/)

 

Atmosphere comes from the Greek words atmos, meaning vapour, and sphaira, meaning ball or globe.

Atmosphere is principally the name given to the envelope of gases surrounding the Earth or other celestial objects; not just of planets but also of asteroids, comets and even stars.

Within a much more “domestic” setting, atmosphere refers to the air (a kind of air) in any particular place.

This applies very well for the environment which we as humans inhabit. We, humans, live on the surface of the Earth, wrapped by its atmosphere. Still grounded because of gravity but erected with our crowns pointing directly upwards. We are creatures of ground, longing for lightness, and so we make ourselves believe that we exist in space, occupying different empty places.

We occupy rooms, landscapes, regions, fields, countries, moments… always in relation to the different spaces created by their boundaries, physical boundaries or perceived boundaries. Even ourselves, occupying a place in space, are spacious. Our own body as counter-space or as inner spaces. We can relate therefore to all those spaces and perceived them as empty. Inner space, intimate space, kinesphere, indoor space, outdoor space, spaces in which we are and spaces beyond the limits of the space in which we are…

All those spaces empty but not… because they are filled with atmosphere.

Atmosphere is therefore a metaphor for what is there but is invisible. Can we then smell it? Can we taste it in the air like when you enter to a mouldy room?

How can we tune with the ethereal… can we miss it? Can we smell the things that don’t smell? Or it is simply as obvious as gravity… always so present that we don’t even realise it exists unless we think about it.

Maybe that’s why also sound can create atmospheres… it has to do with the air and what isn’t seen (or obviously perceived).

Is it deceiving? Is it subjective? Would we agree? Would you need to be extra sensitive?

When I think about art works defined as atmospheric I always imagine quite, tranquil and time-taking kind of works, but what about the busy, noisy and fast-paced works? They must have their own atmosphere, right? Maybe atmospheres, as thin as they are, are very delicate and need of all our undivided attention to be perceived.

Go there, go, and feel the new atmosphere in which you are by changing your place in space.

 

Slow To Go Fast — 13.02.2015 (A Post by Laura Doehler).

Antonio’s Open Lab                            slow to go fast                                        13.02.2015

Petra, Antonio and me tied into an inextricably linked conversation ­constantly driving each other’s thoughts and imagination. Sharing the studio with experienced ‘performer makers’ is a treat, and I am glad there were not more people involved because already we hit overflow. It really is an opportunity to talk to less people and it always surprises me how many people still consider value to be a matter of how many people attend … anything really. But I guess that is one of our daily deceptions. (And brings me back to Antonio’s lab last week which was based on camera play, to see and be seen … and it made me think at that time how many people watching something makes other people believe it must be good … and at the time we realised that when you have audiences on stage that watch a performance and others witness the watching as well as the performance … it becomes more important how the audience watches than the performance itself. The less people you anticipate watching the more you can focus on the performance).

Anyway, back to today: … we created endless lists of things in our minds about what to do that challenge you into the only real action of letting them go ­ trusting they are there and will always be… and in continuing those conversation they will come back if they need to. This lab was a lab of time and brought me to moments being infinite, and us to perceive moments as places of multiple direction of choices and options. Mouths were not fast enough to talk, threads never singular … a relentless exploration for both body and mind. It makes me hungry and greedy for more.

I would like to use this writing to simply stream without need to prioritise or to mention who said what. Let’s say it all was ours. I believe Antonio and Petra would happily agree … because it is the meeting, the exchange that creates naming and articulation. It is each other’s thinking that stirs the conversation. It was very hard to leave. It may have taken us half an hour to step from one side of the door through to the other …

And maybe I enter our past conversations here (denying it already started obviously) because I am personally interested to invite experienced improvisers who explore voice work as well as body work or rather who do not separate voice from body, in order to do a talking piece. Moving and talking at the same time. The thing kids and teenagers do. You have them sitting in class and they listen, you ask them to get up and move and they talk. They can’t help it. This lab moved my idea (like other labs in the past) due to conversations that are potent and all circle around performance or elements linked to performance. Those conversation seem infinite and challenge our perceptions ­ in fact express our perceptions and move them on. And how great would it be to share them and offer an audience to perceive this action … of bringing body and mind and people together­ making visible what is personal and together at the same time.

Also playing with the idea of time made me curious how through imagining moments being infinite a spacious mind and body is created. A mind soaring through the universe while at the same time being really strongly grounded in my body… without my mind manipulating movement because although it has a strong sense of body it can rely on it and trust it. What Antonio called ‘an agent’. I am not sure why that happens but for me it does ­ possibly because with every moment bearing all possibilities, there is no wrong but freedom to navigate as presence and change arises. And it is a state of mind that somehow reaches out into all directions therefore is highly aware of what is going on.

Now, after expanding and endeavouring the idea of time I am afraid mine is running out. Daily impatient chores lurk outside this cafe. But before i finish just a little collection, hints or as we called them: unfinished pieces.

  • ­imagine you were born yesterday.
  • if you go to Resolution at the Place you will know that we have to continue making work… that is aware and mature.
  • imagine your presence now is an excerpt from the future
  • or the past.
  • what is the right time?
  • …ing of movement.
  • if you move as fast as you can and allow some movements to escape this rapid speed they will happily expand and breathe and take their time.
  • making choreography is maybe not about finding a structure in time and space but a mind set or both.
  • and training becomes also a matter of focussing your mind.
  • but what becomes of ownership in performance if we set up states of mind and perception?
  • .

Laura Doehler.

A snippet from OPENLAB (06-02-2015) — Session #15 of Season #3 “Camera… Mirror… Performance!”

On Friday 6 of February Laura Glaser, Laura Doehler and Leah Marojević joined Ricardo Correia and myself for this session featuring (in our heads) an array of mirrors, or at least of reflective surfaces, and photo cameras.

The original idea for the session came from the fact that I haven’t been very good at documenting, whether in writing or through other media, the experiences I have had in the studio during the OPENLAB sessions. I haven’t either been able to encourage people to contribute with this kind of documentation. This is because I understand that investing twice in this shared pondering around what is performing and what it does entail is not easy. I am the first one that has almost no time to reflect upon the lab’s sessions outside of the time in the studio.

In my thinking about direct ways of documenting I approached Ricardo Correia, a Portuguese photographer who recently moved to London whom I met when he got involved with anthologyofamess‘ REFINE residency (also at Chisenhale Dance Space).

During this residency Ricardo became an active member of anthologyofamess’ stable (we consider ourselves a stable – we understand this may not mean anything to you but if you want to read more about what we do just click on the link above). For this reason, I suggested to Ricardo to co-facilitate a session with me. I asked him to give suggestions during the session in the way he has already done with anthologyofamess during our residency.

So ,we agreed on the starting point of introducing a camera into a lab that explores questions about performativity and making presence without being simply a documenting device that pretends not to be there. Instead we would have to confront to the very fact that a camera introduced in the session would not only be witnessing but also acting (or performing, if you prefer).

Ricardo suggested the idea of using the camera as a mirror. We agreed and left it there for a few weeks. However, the time to run the session was getting near and we felt we needed to expand a bit on the idea. Through messaging we agreed that he would be not just a photographer but in a way a performer-photographer (or vice versa); we agreed that we would invite other photographers that could be performer-photographers too; and we agreed that the performers could be also photographer-performers that could bring their own cameras. In summary we didn’t want to impose people to be photographers and performers at the same time but to feel free to act as one, the other or both in any way that it would fit their practice/purpose/exploration/work in the studio.

To round up the idea of camera as mirror, we thought that anybody could also bring actual mirrors (as a tool which is historically used by performers, and in fact is still used by many disciplines, being ballet a clear example of this). Again, any of the attendants could bring either/both cameras or/and mirrors.

The video embedded at the top of this video was an attempt of using my camera to film the others at the same time that they could see themselves being recorded as if it was a mirror. I was playing with my new phone which has a feature my old one didn’t have and have occasionally wished it had: a camera lens on the same side of the screen. During the session I realised that this little piece of equipment had then the potential to be both camera and mirror, rendering both a direct reflection as well a recorded reflection of the moment.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) it ended being a film of myself, and unknowingly so. I messed up with the setting of the camera somehow and it was the lens on the other side of the phone which was active. In my head, I was creating the opposite experience for the person to whom I was directing the lens of my camera. I thought that they were seeing themselves in the screen, at the same time that they saw the camera was recording.

Even when having a regular camera directed to myself I tried to engage with the task of imagining seeing myself through the camera lens. I mean the idea of using my mind’s eye to see the result of that image. Not as a task to produce a sort of uncomfortable and performatively-speaking unproductive self-consciousness, but, once overcome that possible effect of the mental exercise, to generate a new sense and feed-back into the action of performing… Now, Deborah Hay’s “My Body, the Buddhist” comes to mind.

The video in my phone plays in slow-mo and when I watched yesterday I wrote this:

This video is a snippet of the session “Camera… Mirror… Performance!” …. During that session … the camera was proposed as an eye that sees, but an eye which is also as much actor as it is spectator, both inside and outside of the performing act simultaneously. This camera-eye was used during our session both as witness and as maker (or at least co-maker) of the performing exploration, and it was used as a point of (self-) reflection. In this way, it was an eye that reproduced copies now available for us to look at, but also served as a “mirror” of mental imagery (self-) representation. Like en eye that reflects in its own surface what its retina is also capturing, like an eye that could be a window both to the oneself (through that reflection) and to the other —owner of that eye…

 

N.B. This description is only my own reflection upon the session. As OPENLAB proposes a shared space for “co-independent” performance practice/work/exploration (co-independent meaning that it is done together, influenced by one another’s presences, but at the same time it is done as a personal and unique exploration), the experiences of others participants may differ from those described here.

I’d like to close up with this self-quote. In a way by quoting this text I repeat themes I have just written throughout this post too… and at the same time it sounds like I touched onto themes I could expand… but in that expansion I could also get lost.

However, I’d love to hear from others if ever these words get read by anyone and they entice them to continue these musing in the form of a dialogue.

I’m waiting to hearing from you. Until then, I will use my mirror.