I just got back from a fascinating screening of a review film (that's my term, I mean a compiled film of a live event) that captures a show that Redmoon artistic director Jim Lasko collaborated 'ensemble' to create with several Australian folks (tech design, artistic direction and they had a fabulous musical designer who seemed to have some stand-alone direction, Basil Hodges).
The overall concepts fit with Redmoon themes and style from the past. What really caught my attention was how successful they were (with the addition of really choice music from the 17th/18th century British Isles traditions - brought to America/Australia - work songs, minstrelsy, vaudeville traditions, plus didgery do, some intriguing drumming, etc. all set out in a through-composed format) in making a documentary that gave at least a strong taste of the live production.
At the q&a session following the viewing, Jim was quick to say that film does not serve the live medium - agreed. But they did have some gains. The ability to show details of face, interior space, 3-dimensional stuff that can be lost to an outdoor audience was impressive.
Mst of all I was captivated by the organic creativity used, with some linear plotting, references to many cultures (really all continents except for Africa and perhaps Antarctica), the story visited timelines in multiple directions. The beginning references the end, the middle; other sections of the piece do likewise. In discussions of the limits of linear approaches this piece makes good use of linearism, but is not bounded by it.
What I really liked about the piece (probably more readily available to the live audience, but glimpsed in the film version) was the marrying of social consciousness-driven thinking, art for art's sake, risk (by designers, but much more by those suspended in the rigging), cohesion through music design, questions viewed multiple times in different media (live actors, puppets, lighting as artistic voice, minstrelsy and circus arts, song-enactment, and from the film perspective--use of close up/full screen cinematic perspective).
Bravo, Jim and Co!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Definitions and Assumptions
To begin with a quote from a recent comment: "One of the challenges inherent in exploring both of these questions [artistic voice and what is art] is the need for vigilant definition plus careful assessment of personal/collective assumptions. Without attention to both of these hinges on reality, discourse turns muddy, even as mental streams tend to dry up."
I have been busily stripping away as many assumptions as I can (well, ok that's the goal, I'm not there yet). In my tiny world of learning I have been soaking up teachings this summer. One of them is apparently called "MicroInequities" - I believe this is a trademarked term and I love the content encompassed. 10% of our communications are verbal, the rest are non-verbal including body language, pauses in delivery, tone of voice and the flying saucers we envision as we allow the inner critic to dominate the field and tear apart our unworthy opponents.
A microinequity is the small, yet potent message we actually send as we smile and deliver some sultry palaver of platitudes. While that issue may or may not have much relevance in the artistic process, the assumptions that feed into this behavior are at the core of the issue. Why do we make stuff up about: people, places, created works, ourselves, everything?
As I walk about, lie around and just do my daily stuff I'm assuming all of these things. That person has all this baggage I have endowed him with, even though I know nothing about it and he would laugh at what I have assumed. As I am practicing the big strip tease, lose it or name it, I have all of these wild artistic notions. For example...
Returning this morning from a walk in the park I saw a young boy, an old man (truly, those were not assumptions, though I can't say what the ages are, but shorter than adult growth and reclining, with cane and grey haired) I examined my internal dialog. First I decided they were grandson and grandfather. Strike that, could be any relationship. They are definitely male people, humans, persons of color, could be any class, might be any relationship, although it's before 8am, so someone probably knows they are together.
The boy was chasing the geese into the south pond at Lincoln Park. Awesome - just what I always want to do. The older man was ensconsed in a chair with a fishing rod, instructing the boy (he said "do it [this] way", I think it's fair to say he was the teacher). Without going into more assumptions, I named my issue (now don't go making assumptions) and thought how much I would like to be one or both of them (probably not the geese or the possible fish on the hook). They belonged to each other.
What if the story is taking place somewhere else, New Orleans, Mars, a ritzy apartment in Vegas? What if only song is involved? Or dance? Photomontage would definitely show the perspective of the geese, quite possibly the fish as well. I would suggest that to build an entire story about who's who, what the relationship is and then impose a plot is an example of linear thinking.
If this is the case, I finally understand what linear thinking is. Send me your thoughts.
I have been busily stripping away as many assumptions as I can (well, ok that's the goal, I'm not there yet). In my tiny world of learning I have been soaking up teachings this summer. One of them is apparently called "MicroInequities" - I believe this is a trademarked term and I love the content encompassed. 10% of our communications are verbal, the rest are non-verbal including body language, pauses in delivery, tone of voice and the flying saucers we envision as we allow the inner critic to dominate the field and tear apart our unworthy opponents.
A microinequity is the small, yet potent message we actually send as we smile and deliver some sultry palaver of platitudes. While that issue may or may not have much relevance in the artistic process, the assumptions that feed into this behavior are at the core of the issue. Why do we make stuff up about: people, places, created works, ourselves, everything?
As I walk about, lie around and just do my daily stuff I'm assuming all of these things. That person has all this baggage I have endowed him with, even though I know nothing about it and he would laugh at what I have assumed. As I am practicing the big strip tease, lose it or name it, I have all of these wild artistic notions. For example...
Returning this morning from a walk in the park I saw a young boy, an old man (truly, those were not assumptions, though I can't say what the ages are, but shorter than adult growth and reclining, with cane and grey haired) I examined my internal dialog. First I decided they were grandson and grandfather. Strike that, could be any relationship. They are definitely male people, humans, persons of color, could be any class, might be any relationship, although it's before 8am, so someone probably knows they are together.
The boy was chasing the geese into the south pond at Lincoln Park. Awesome - just what I always want to do. The older man was ensconsed in a chair with a fishing rod, instructing the boy (he said "do it [this] way", I think it's fair to say he was the teacher). Without going into more assumptions, I named my issue (now don't go making assumptions) and thought how much I would like to be one or both of them (probably not the geese or the possible fish on the hook). They belonged to each other.
What if the story is taking place somewhere else, New Orleans, Mars, a ritzy apartment in Vegas? What if only song is involved? Or dance? Photomontage would definitely show the perspective of the geese, quite possibly the fish as well. I would suggest that to build an entire story about who's who, what the relationship is and then impose a plot is an example of linear thinking.
If this is the case, I finally understand what linear thinking is. Send me your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)