Hmmm...
It seems that conciousness, modes of attention and states of mind create an aesthetic and/or values about what is good, beautiful, true or real. So far in the ET that I have experienced I find one rigorous and unified state of mind. I have not performed in that strict framework enough to judge whether or not it create its own aesthetic. But I suspect it does.
It seems like some states of mind are too inaccessible for ET - because they are inaccessible to a normal audience through the medium of performance. Values like shock seemed challenging to ET. Questions about performance- is the space a stage for the entertainment of others or a space for self-realization?When does one fail the other? Why are they separate?- seemed to be popping up via performance...
What I think I was doing in Marfa was learning about what kinds of departures from the "score" can I view through the lens of ET and what kinds muck it up so much, or as Nina said "tear the envelope?"
What seemed to work is that if I let my attention be wide enough (sometimes it felt like 360! and I believe that this expansiveness was arrived at through the exercise aspect of ET) almost anything was possible. Like, I am screaming fuck and it (the scream of fuck) is in a line and there are three of us and it takes the hot spot from Heidi.
Hmmm, there's more I want to get down to. Questions really. Like what is ET's or anyone's take on theme and development in live performance?
4 comments:
"Values like shock seemed challenging to ET."
Hi Sarah, I am curious about what you said there and I would like to clarify. To me, ET is able to support enourmous shift in theme, dynamic, ryhtme, vocabulary, often in a very fast way. I had never seen this happen before I was exposed to ET and was stuggling in a more sluggish kind of improv. In other kind of group work, sometimes, there is shock or big shift beeing pushed in the space but I have found that often there is a lack of awarness the intention of shocking... IAs a member of audience watching these events occur, I would see a duality in the space, but not from a point of choice but from a point of confusion. But I would like to hear you more on that!
Hi Julie! Thanks for responding! I had to think about your comment for a few days. I guess the original question is about aesthetics and does ET dictate an aesthetic? I am revolving round and round trying to grapple with this. I think it dictates that an emerging "something" be seen by actors and audience through an aesthetic POV, but here I don't equate aesthtic with style (the aesthetic) but rather as a compositional mode of attention to what is going on, how it reads, whether it reads.
However, if "space" is a fundamental consideration in all instances then I think we do start to train ourtselves as improvisors in ways that might inhibit some impulses. If the fudnamental question is "Do I move this way or that way in space?" when do I ask myself "do I pull from my subconscious or do I read the literal scene in front of me and respond literally?" It's just that there are so many questions to ask oursleves in a moment.
I do think space is like the big spiderweb of a piece that one's impulses get snagged in, thus composing the dance, but if my impulses have to always have their ID's checked by the spiders before they fly into the web, I think the limitations of ET begin to emerge....
I was thinking about the idea of shock in Sfadi when Nina said that there is value in tension. Maybe that's why it's hard to use shock in ET since it has so much value, it puts the hole improv economy at risk. As improvisers, we just need to be confident enough to go to these places and come back to simple ideas.
Post a Comment