THURSDAY 20.10.2022

Late afternoon arrival in Bergen

First hellos during the Opening Night Party and listening to some impressions from Eszter Salamon’s The Living Monument, including both ‘It’s boring!’ and ‘It’s slow but once you understand its logic, you can probably dive into it.’
 

FRIDAY 21.10.2022

Breakfast Club at Hordaland Kunstsenter – an informal meeting organised by i.c.a.p. (international collaborative arts productions) for discussing the performance of the previous night – in this case, The Living Monument.

As the programme notes informed us, The Living Monument is the outcome of the choreographer’s ‘multiple performances revolving around monuments as political manifestations of freedom, memory, and inclusion’. One of the first tensions that this piece created was about if it was political or not. Having not seen the piece ahead of the discussion, it felt contradictory for a work to be claiming its political manifestation while being characterised as epic due to its long duration, high production values and lavish costumes. Someone mentioned that the piece worked politically because it forced the audience to sit firm in their place for two hours, thus to ‘slow down’, while offering the possibility of having a visual arts experience – watching a sort of a live sculpture inside a theatre. Another person mentioned that deconstructing the understanding of what a monument is, the piece drew parallels with the statue-toppling protests in the UK in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Open Talk: Working Slow

This was a discussion between members of Performing Criticism Globally and invited Springback writers on writing as a slow practice that inevitably opened to the possibilities of creating and producing slowly as well as the conditions that impede slow working. Among the issues that were discussed and still resonate with me is: how to sustain a slow practice and at the same time keep it relevant (…but for whom?). [See Czech Dance News for more on this session.]

Performance: A Room by the Sea by Yeh Ming-Hwa

Yeh Ming-Hwa, a Taiwanese performer, explored the tension between dance tradition and freedom of moving expression by revisiting and associating different icons of dance history with her own past. Together with other Springback writers, we thought that the transformation of the traumatic experience of disciplining the body into a creative practice constitutes a tendency in dancemaking based on autobiography and trauma (think for instance of Jerôme Bel’s Veronique Doisneau, and ME – NMU – AMI by and with Mani Obeya in collaboration with Willie Dorner). 

In this performance, I enjoyed the rather scattered use of space with scenes located in different parts of the performing industrial area that invited the audience to reposition themselves around the performer, but overall I found the work self-referential. 

Performance: The Living Monument by Eszter Salamon

Having in mind the morning’s discussion about the political potential of this work, it was very difficult to discern anything political about or in the work. The two-hour piece unfolded as a slow and smooth transition between ten tableaux vivants in which the performers wore full-body voluminous and elaborate costumes and masks. ‘Exhausting’ a modernist understanding of dance as movement, the main ingredients of this tense visual experience were stillness, positionality and controlled movement. The colour-coded scenes troubled the linearity of historical eras, and the abstractness of poses, gestures and costumes made it hard to associate the ‘living sculptures’ with specific historical events. The work, aesthetically promising, suffered from the small studio theatre of the Carte Blanche company; it was a performance in need of a big stage to unfold its full potential in mesmerising the spectators.
 

SATURDAY 22.10.2022

Open Talk: More Than One Hat?

This was the second open event organised by Performing Criticism Globally. While expecting to engage into a fruitful discussion with other multi-tasking professionals, I felt that the topic of dealing with different hats in our professional life was left undeveloped. Its abrupt interruption at the scheduled time without reaching any informal conclusions gave me the impression that this session was executed rather than being investigated. 

After dividing ourselves into small teams, a representative of each group shared the key points of each subgroup discussion. Here are some questions generally outlined by these representatives that I was able to keep a track of:

• Do we wear different hats out of personal curiosity and a quest for self-fulfilment, or a financial need?
• How do we introduce ourselves in different contexts, especially in non-hybrid and normative environments where people have clear roles and professions?
• How do we navigate a working system that is not made for multi-hatted freelancers – who might also be carers?
• Does being critical mean staying distant, frontal and uninfluenced by the artists’ intentions?

Particularly in our group, I was struck by one of the writers who said that although she specialised in contemporary performing arts, she uses her knowledge to review only opera in order to avoid conflicts of interest. This sparked a brief discussion about the mission of the critic in which the same writer sustained the position that a critic must be objective and distant – which I found so utopian considering that ‘objectivity is dead’ and the subject as a social and cultural construction has its own value. As an extension of this distant writing, another colleague who commented on the value of the programme notes mentioned that the review writing must concentrate on what is on stage, implying that the success and the comprehension of a finished product must be autonomous from the intention of the artist. Does being critical mean staying distant, frontal and uninfluenced by the artists’ intentions? Where do we stand as artist-writers who socialise with other artists and often participate in their creative processes? I enjoy presenting one of my hats as being a writer, because being a writer – and not a critic – gives me the chance to deal with different forms of writing and in proximity with practice and the creative process.

Someone also mentioned how the evaluation of artistic projects for grants applications in the UK includes any kind of reviews, coming not only from experts (critics) but also audience members, especially those who have never attended a performance before. Although this testifies to an inclusive turn in the performing arts, I wonder if this is another hit to the profession of the critic, and what could be the modes of building resilience and increasing the value of the dance critic nowadays. 

Tribute to Sven Åge Birkeland

Have you ever participated in a party without having received an invitation? This is how it felt during the first moments of being at the party ceremony for Sven Åge’s Birkeland’s memorial. Something like that but also this awkward sensation of getting to know someone and his oeuvre after he has died; this strange sensation of empathy towards those who remained that brings tears to your eyes because of their touching words on how they have been impacted by his ‘punk rocker’ personality.
 

SUNDAY 23.10.2022

Seminar: Dramaturgy #1 with Jon Refsdal Moe, Bojana Cvejić & Marta Keil

Jon Refsdal Moe provided a brief historical and sociological introduction to the birth and development of dramaturgy going back to the relationship between art and the state in the era of Louis XIV. Besides this very informative introduction, his account of the status of dramaturg in contemporary performance remained opaque and it was hard to see the connection with what is currently happening now in the field. Bojana Cvejić presented an evolution of her research on dramaturgy from ‘a friendship of problems’ into a process of building the performative material that begins and ends with ‘empty hands’ (a process as elusive as dance). Reflecting on the work of institutional dramaturgy, Marta Keil proposed dramaturgy as a collective way of thinking and the dramaturg as the person who makes visible the emotional care beyond the numerical data of progress and evaluation.

Questions and conflict points that emerged from the three presentations:

• Do independent performing arts dramaturgs need to stay an ‘invisible bridge’, a ‘silent partner’, an ‘activated spectator’ or claim visibility for improving their working conditions? If the dramaturg remains invisible, how can this role be acknowledged and receive financial support?
• Are dramaturgs indeed invisible, especially when considering those based inside institutions?
• Is the dramaturg the distant eye of the creative process and artistic creation that enables a critical reflection, or a companion and thus an integral part of the artistic process that dismantles hierarchies and artistic agency?
• How does the work of a dramaturg expand in the time before and after a performance to allow it to ‘leak’ out of the stage and reveal its transformative power? What is the role of dramaturgy in educating people to return to the theatre and transforming theatre institutions into collective spaces? (the last two questions are credited to Bojana Cvejić

While Jon Refsdal Moe and Bojana Cvejić spoke about the dramaturg in relation to the independent arts scene and emerging artists, Marta Keil provided an institutional frame for the dramaturg that, frankly, I had forgotten. Speaking about institutional contexts, Keil presented dramaturgy as a practice of care that is also applied to the everyday work of an institution for keeping it in the process of becoming and preventing it from stagnation. According to Keil, the dramaturg contributes to the transformation of the institution by building intrainstitutional and local relationships and transnational alliances. Originally, I thought of this triangular role as a series of responsibilities deriving from professionals affiliated with institutions who have a background in international and cultural relationships, and I have previously imagined the role of an institutionally-based dramaturg to be an integral part of the creative process working side by side with directors and/or choreographers. Given that I am peripherally familiar with the practice of dramaturgy, for me it was surprising and encouraging to be reminded of the macro-potential of this role, and to see someone placing the dramaturg in such an empowering position. Could this position be applicable to countries such as Greece and Italy (my countries of origin and residence)? 

Performance: Ensaio para uma cartografia by Mónica Calle

Ensaio para uma cartografia is almost a rehearsal of a single movement towards mastery. Based on a key movement phrase from the iconic Boléro by Maurice Béjart, reproducing the rhythmic motif of Ravel’s composition, it is a piece that exposes failure and the impossibility of perfection. Exhaustive repetition can be deeply painful and other times truly rewarding and empowering as expressed in the performer’s faces. Feminist critiques considered it a work that exposes the female nudity and subjugation to the male oppressor (the registered voice of the conductor Leonard Bernstein) but for me it, remains a work that deconstructs performance stereotypes regarding the untrained body on stage and its professionalisation. 

MONDAY 24.10.2022

Seminar: Dramaturgy #2 with Ulla Kallenbach, Yon Natalie Mik, Zee Hartmann, Gaia Clotilde Chernetich, Keld Hyldig, Elin Amundsen Grinaker 

In Dramaturgy and Imagination, Ulla Kallenbach approached dramaturgy from the perspective of the spectator, looking at the role of imagination in meaning-making. This is a fascinating research that distinguishes dramaturgy from the dramaturg, considering it as a body-mind process that helps the spectator to create a complete picture of the performance event. Nevertheless, I was left wondering about a potential gap in this research between the activation of the internal archive of each individual (memory) and the imagination in the process of meaning-making. I also found the following question from a student at the seminar very enlightening:

What is the potential of the research on theatrical experience and meaning-making beyond the conventional performances and specifically in the field of AR/VR performances, where the border between reality, the real, the ‘suspension of disbelief’, the imagination and illusion are blurred? 

Yon Natalie Mik linked autotheory (her method of dance research) with autofiction, automythography and autoethnography – ways of doing research that begin from the self and unite researcher and research object. As she explained, autotheory bridges the theoretical with the biographical and emphasises the production and embodiment of theory. In this way, she affirmed the role of the dance dramaturg as ‘being with’ the choreographer instead of staying a distant spectator.

Zee Hartmann presented the theoretical frame and the structure of her dramaturgical workshop on saying ‘no’ productively during performance-making. Since her presentation was focused on the workshop, I was left wondering how the ‘productive negation’ can work over a longer period of time, especially in relation to delivering a ‘finished’ work, and how horizontal the process can be given that she is the facilitator of the workshop.

Speaking specifically about the Italian context from her experience as a dramaturg also working with disabled artists, Gaia Clotilde Chernetich proposed dramaturgy to be ‘a human labour of the future’ driven by and based on care towards the artists and their work. Similar to Gaia’s perspective, Elin Amundsen Grinaker proposed the dramaturg as a doula, a caregiver who provides guidance and support to the artist during the birth of an artistic work, and a listener who forms questions through listening. In between Gaia and Elin’s presentations, Keld Hyldig provided a very clear profile description of the dramaturge and what dramaturgy can offer:

• an analytical eye to the performance
• knowledge
• a generalisation of the work for the audience
• theorisation of the contribution of the performance

After a two-day exposure to the practice of dramaturgy in the field of independent performing arts, I was left wondering how many of the works that I saw in the festival were in need of dramaturgy – especially in regards to The Living Monument, Ensaio para uma cartografia, J’ai pleuré avec les chiens. Does ‘slowing down’ – an implicit theme of this festival – mean creating long pieces where the development of the work is almost obscure or nonexistent? Is avoiding development and sticking to a specific choreographic strategy – for instance, repetition of structure and gesture – a tool to create a specific impact on the spectator? What could have been the contribution of the dramaturg in these works?

Performance: J’ai pleuré avec les chiens (Time, Creation, Destruction) by Daina Ashbee

J’ai pleuré avec les chiens enclosed the performers in a healing ritual that created contradictory reactions in the audience – some crying, others laughing, others leaving. Acro-yoga poses exposed the liberated-from-clothing bodies, and nudity in proximity to the audience created an unfulfilled provocation. The performance left me wondering about the limits between the intimacy and the performativity of healing, and the value of criticising theatrical tradition and illusion with tools such as raw nudity and slowly accumulated trance, that were firstly introduced more than half a century ago. History shows that choreographers who initially troubled the audience became the ones who revolutionised the performing arts. Time will show if this was a revolutionary work or not.