Devynn- 3/30/08

Please share any thoughts/questions for Devynn here. This is for people that attended the 3/30 SWAP session. Please include your name when posting any comments.

7:02 PM - 7 Comments 

Hey Devynn. I've been thinking about some of the things you said about humanness and the example you gave about wanting to zoom in on certain body parts (the arm). If this is of any interest to you, can you talk a little bit more about how you're thinking about these things? I have some specific questions/thoughts, but I wanna make sure that A) I'm on the same page with you about your interest/intentions regarding humanness and the body and B) ask whether or not discussing this further is productive for you at this time.

Posted by map dance collective on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 at 9:59 AM 

that last thing was from Danielle by the way.

Posted by map dance collective on Sunday, April 06, 2008 at 1:38 AM 

hey, thanks for asking, yes it's of interest to me. in my work i tend to want to distort the body, see only one part at a time, or have it viewed as other-bodied. in the past it has taken the form of character, and of creature, covering and masking. i have also used lights, projected patterns to blend into to see one part at a time, and mostly dancefilm to create various visual affects to trick the eye. as i replied to ashley, i am attempting for the first time to achieve a distortion of body without any of the bells and whistles. and so, i'm having to work extra hard on how to get the audience to see certain things. understandably we are 3d moving humans and we are humans watching it, so this task is difficult without any props or structures in the space etc. when i say i don't want it to be human, i mostly am referring to my desire for the audience to simply see the structures, the patterns, the shading and textures and rhythms created. i don't wish for a personality to read, rather a structure moving through space. ask away, it indeed is productive for me. thanks!

Posted by devynn on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 at 3:02 PM 

When I watched you and Meg dance this duet I was reminded of the word metonymy. This is what I wrote in one of my journals from undergrad to remember and understand the word:

Metonymy – a part to stand in for the whole. The smaller as a representation of, or a cue to, or a metaphor for the larger idea.

Or in the case of this dance as I perceived it—your use of isolated body parts referenced/drew my attention to the whole body rather than offer a detailed description/zooming in on that singular part. In the instance of your flexed arms, their fixed position in contrast to your moving bodies navigating the space made me tune into the more fluid reverberations in your spines as you stopped and started as well as your foot patterns. Also, later when you did the torso twitch in the chairs—something about that action made me only want to look at your faces. 

Here are two other definitions/examples of the metonymy:

From Wikipedia:
In cognitive linguistics, metonymy refers to the use of a single characteristic to identify a more complex entity and is one of the basic characteristics of cognition. It is common for people to take one well-understood or easy-to-perceive aspect of something and use that aspect to stand either for the thing as a whole or for some other aspect or part of it.

And this is from About. com:
Metonymy is also the rhetorical strategy of describing something indirectly by referring to things around it, such as describing someone's clothing in order to characterize the individual.

I am a big film dork, so much of my work is informed by cinema as well. I actually tried to give myself this identical task of zooming in and out using only live movement a couple years ago. Ultimately as far as achieving this task, I don’t think that I was very successful BUT some unexpected cool things did happen along the way and I’m glad that I played with the idea. The main differences I found between cinema and live performance: in cinematography you have complete control over what the viewer will see b/c you are literally framing their vision with a lens, while in performance (as you said) “we are humans watching it”—from multiple vantage points/perspectives, there are endless choices. It also has something to do with that very live-ness of live performance—it happens in real time and is ephemeral by nature, whereas cinema is fixed within time. It is a difficult task to give yourself for sure, but it seems like you are aware of this and fluid enough to think of it as experimentation.

Also, on humanness… 
When I watch this dance I am definitely drawn to the spatial structures, patterns, textures and rhythms you have created. But I definitely watch you and Meg moving together as people. To me, a kind of humanness reads in this piece—but not in the sense of personality (meaning it’s not like I watch, thinking “there’s Devynn, the quiet, sincere blahdeeblah and Meg, the witty, forthcoming hooteehoo—these are weird and not good examples, but I hope you get what I mean). The humanness that is visible to me is about that difference/similar or that similar/difference that exists within each of us. Those subtle differences that locate individuality and autonomy and those subtle similarities that remind us of our inherent connectedness. That is the kind of humanness that I see in your dance and while it doesn’t really matter, I do find it lovely. I think that it creates an access point and allows us to see those other things that you want us to see, ie: the patterns, spatial architecture, etc.

Danielle

Posted by Danielle on Sunday, April 06, 2008 at 1:30 AM 

Ashley here. 
I am interested in what Danielle brings up. 
An outside source that might be helpful (because sometimes internal thinking just gets us more confused) 

When Yvonne Rainer had her mid-dance crisis and decided to leave dance behind to make movies. She wrote about how dance wasn't able to do what she wanted to do with it. I know that she wrote a lot during this period. I haven't really done tons of research but know the writing asks lots of questions about "ways to edit" that Devynn was thinking about on Sunday. 

Maybe reading that will help give a kind of additional resource. A new way to think about something that is, one some level, so deeply personal.

Posted by map dance collective on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 at 10:22 AM 

thanks for the source ashley. this is an interesting topic, as i have been making dancfilms and in the last few works they have been interactive with my choreography. i thought that it would lend me some answers to obscuring the viewers perspective, and creating visuals that i don't think can be achieved with dance. this is the first experiment outside of that bubble. i have chosen to let go of the video component, and find ways to still use a "zoom" lense, and still distort the body by drawing attention to a certain part, or to create a more visual landscape that would detract from the body, and perhaps ask the audience to view the body, and most importantly the environment i attempt to create, in a different way. i don't wish to give in, and only make films or write. but i certainly allow the techniques used in these mediums to make my works. i wish for my work to appear "cinematic". right now trying to see if i can achieve that through dance.

Posted by devynn on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 at 3:03 PM 

hi devynn
this is je
few thoughts after 3days

as you know, i watched from the side on sunday. i assume i had different view from others.
especially, when you and meg started do the flex right hand...the part
i did not focus you and meg right hands AT ALL. i was more focus your feet, moving torso, back and how stopped/started. 
i found interesting rhythm from the movement. and the rhythm was connected well with music. i think.
it was surprise to me when people mention only the right hand. 

and when you and meg started really move with the right hand movement, it reminded me a 
http://www. pbs. org/wgbh/nova/einstein/images/lrk-maze. gif

more come!
love, je

Posted by je on Thursday, April 03, 2008 at 10:22 AM 

Ashley- 3/30/08

Please share any thoughts/questions for Ashley here. This is for people that attended the 3/30 SWAP session. Please include your name when posting any comments.

6:51 PM - 4 Comments 

map dance collective 

Hi Ashley. Can you talk a bit more about the singing as it relates to the spacial trajectories (other than the obvious fact that they occur at the same time/overlap one another)? Without necessarily divulging information about source material/process. I just know (b/c I know you, and I'm familiar with your work) that your choices about singing and your choices about spacial relationships are both equally specific. I just wanted to acknowledge that. Maybe that's all that needs to be said (?)

Danielle

Posted by map dance collective on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 at 10:17 AM 

  map dance collective 

Danielle, I think I can talk about it more now that I have had a day or so to think. 
When Megan asked me about my process/what I wanted it was difficult to answer because I've been around people so long that have seen all my work. Being out of the context makes it harder to explain, or rather, harder to explain well. So I can try a little better now: 

I think about dance the way someone else might think about physics or calculus. I produce these kind of elaborate equations or logical sequences that determine how the movement happens in space. 

That said, the way the movement is created comes from a less abstract subject (like physics) and made from sources which are deeply personal (dare I say sentimental) Those sources include anything from books to paintings to tangible objects. 

When those two elements are combined (where the movement comes from and where the arrangment comes from) something curious happens. Which is why I would like to think people said "memory" as something that came to mind. Because, the movement on some level is familiar (in terms of it's subject matter) and another is unfamiliar (in terms of how it happens) 

So when I say I'm interested in the trajectory of how the dancers get from point A to B to C, really I'm interested in two things. One, how they physically get there and two, what questions can be asked of the reasons why they might get there. One of those reasons is the song. And that is how it ends up carrying emotional weight. And that's cool with me. And I like that's what people notice. 

And I'm not sure what I really "want" people to see. I'm just curious "how" they see it move and that includes both physical patterning and song singing. 

So that's not the worlds most perfect or accurate explanation. But a little better than Sunday.

Posted by map dance collective on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 at 10:52 AM 

  devynn 

ashley, since you are interested in "how" we see things in this piece, as well as how the song carries emotional weight i'd like to comment on how each of the dancers interact with this emotional component. jennys movement is seemly a bit more kindred with the song. soft, gentle, carefree. danielle seems to be almost working against it. this contrast was interesting. the moment where they overlapped, meaning they were on the same page with this emotion was at the end when they were on the floor crouched down, singing in unison making the equation ( i am now seeing it as calculus)...a completed one. hopefully this is helpful.

Posted by devynn on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 at 3:02 PM 

  map dance collective 

super super helpful
and 
interesting

Posted by map dance collective on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 at 7:23 AM