[Untitled Solo]
Inspired by: Homepage Article of The Onion, Issue 49-03 on January 14, 2013
http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-6-best-dresses-at-the-golden-globes,30897/
For the cumulative project of this class, I wanted to combine both the theoretical/social commentary themes we discussed with the some technological practices we observed. Choreography, being my primary form of art and performance, was the obvious choice, and to challenge myself, I decided to make the piece specifically for video.
This is my first attempt at choreographing for video, and so my movement choices were wider in terms of the angle, proximity, and speed at which they were presented to the audience. It was both challenging and liberating to think beyond the usual box I am used to working in, and I am looking forward to making many more pieces in this format.
As for the content, I was inspired directly by title page article of The Onion newspaper's website the morning after the Golden Globes. The juxtaposition of the obsession with celebrity culture with the Syrian civil war harked to many of our class discussions: celebrity culture, war journalism, photojournalism, social recognition.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Self-Affirmation via Facebook
So this came up on my Facebook newsfeed recently, and I am embarrassed to say that I like the girl who wrote it. I did not want to post this directly to our Facebook group in case she somehow found out I was spreading around her self-affirmation-by-means-of-social-media gloating. I did cut off her name, but I still did not want to take that chance. (I know you can argue that she put it out there herself, and should therefore suffer the consequences, but I would prefer some anonymity for myself here). Enjoy...
Form Follows Function?
I have had the pleasure of seeing two concerts during the recent months of artists/bands who differ not only in musical style, but also performance style as well as the incorporation of electronic media into their performances: Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds vs Sigur Ros.
Performance Style
Nick Cave is the quintessential rock star with his raspy voice, dirty long hair, and glamorous shiny black pants. Now in his mid-fifties, the Australian artist has been making music with The Bad Seeds for decades, and his songs range from electric-guitar based rock anthems to slow, melodic ballads on the piano. His live performance was equally as gritty and raw as his music. Mr. Cave gave an energetic performance, climbing over the speakers to the front of the stage, singing directly to audience members, and even pulled a girl up onstage at one point. He danced around the stage, running from one Bad Seeds musician to the next, knocking over mic stands and cords in the process. He provided small anecdotes between songs, and encouraged the audience to sing along with him through the entire evening.
Sigur Ros presented the audience with a musical experience. The Icelandic trio performed with an eleven piece band, including horn, string, and percussion sections in addition to the drums, guitar, and bowed-guitar of the band themselves. Thus, they were able to create the electronic and ambient sounds on their records with live music, the impact of which remained powerful and longlasting. Unlike Nick Cave, though, Sigur Ros's frontman Jonsi did not attempt to engage the audience with his corporeal performance, only saying one sentence in English the entire time "thank you very much for coming." Instead, he relied on his almost mythical style of playing his electric guitar with a cello bow, along with the power of the band (and the visuals to be discussed below) for entertainment value.
Electronic Media Element
The only presence of electronic media (if at all) at the Nick Cave concert was the lighting design, which even still, remained very rudimentary. Basic color splashes against the scrim, half a dozen moving gobos, and white spotlights were the only visuals used in the performance. Not only were these the only electronic component, but they were executed fairly poorly; for example, the spotlight was more often focused too high or low of Mr. Cave, and not on the performer himself.
Sigur Ros, on the other hand, included a full electronic visual experience in addition to their music. They performed the first three songs inside a cube of fabric reaching up 50 feet high, with various digital projections and light manipulations onto it (strobe lights from inside the cube made huge silhouettes of Jonsi onto the fabric). The crashing down of the fabric coincided with the pinnacle point of the third song, to reveal a stage with strategically placed lights as well as a large digital screen behind the performers. This screen showed various video throughout the performance, including clips from music videos to sprawling landscapes to nature elements moving in tempo with the music (clouds, water ripples, etc). Furthermore, the lights onstage were much more elaborate than basic color splashes; they moved in various formations, from twinkling to waves moving across the stage. The most impactful use of the lights, though, included an realtime audio trigger from the drummer, starting with a slow flash with the bass drum to full on strobe lights during more intense percussive moments.
Form Follows Function?
In a strict comparison of these two musical artists, the use of electronic media supports a form-follows-function model. Nick Cave, who engages his audience with his constantly-moving body (and connects with the viewers by singing in the same language), captures the attention of the live audience himself. Projection and videos would have been fine, though they would have maybe been superfluous to his show. On the contrary, Sigur Ros's musical performance, though extremely beautiful and musically intricate, does not activate the audience's eyes in the same way, leaving a lot of room for visual engagement through electronic media. Therefore, their lighting design and video choices were extremely deliberate, unlike the haphazardness of the Nick Cave concert.
The Venue Factor
The difference in venue is a notable observation in this comparison. Nick Cave performed at The Beacon Theatre on the Upper West Side, while Sigur Ros was at the arena at Madison Square Garden. The Beacon Theatre provides a much more intimate space compared to MSG for Mr. Cave to really connect with his audience; however, its technical capabilities are far overshadowed by the huge sports arena that are better suited for a visual show like Sigur Ros's. Interestingly, Nick Cave performed three nights at The Beacon with all shows sold out, while Sigur Ros performed only one night, though to a full house too. In other words, the two musical acts have comparable selling power, but they still chose venues that cater more towards the needs of their electronic media and performance styles (though I am sure factors like venue rental price and availability play into the decision as well).
Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds
The Beacon Theatre
Performance Style
Nick Cave is the quintessential rock star with his raspy voice, dirty long hair, and glamorous shiny black pants. Now in his mid-fifties, the Australian artist has been making music with The Bad Seeds for decades, and his songs range from electric-guitar based rock anthems to slow, melodic ballads on the piano. His live performance was equally as gritty and raw as his music. Mr. Cave gave an energetic performance, climbing over the speakers to the front of the stage, singing directly to audience members, and even pulled a girl up onstage at one point. He danced around the stage, running from one Bad Seeds musician to the next, knocking over mic stands and cords in the process. He provided small anecdotes between songs, and encouraged the audience to sing along with him through the entire evening.
Sigur Ros presented the audience with a musical experience. The Icelandic trio performed with an eleven piece band, including horn, string, and percussion sections in addition to the drums, guitar, and bowed-guitar of the band themselves. Thus, they were able to create the electronic and ambient sounds on their records with live music, the impact of which remained powerful and longlasting. Unlike Nick Cave, though, Sigur Ros's frontman Jonsi did not attempt to engage the audience with his corporeal performance, only saying one sentence in English the entire time "thank you very much for coming." Instead, he relied on his almost mythical style of playing his electric guitar with a cello bow, along with the power of the band (and the visuals to be discussed below) for entertainment value.
Electronic Media Element
The only presence of electronic media (if at all) at the Nick Cave concert was the lighting design, which even still, remained very rudimentary. Basic color splashes against the scrim, half a dozen moving gobos, and white spotlights were the only visuals used in the performance. Not only were these the only electronic component, but they were executed fairly poorly; for example, the spotlight was more often focused too high or low of Mr. Cave, and not on the performer himself.
Sigur Ros, on the other hand, included a full electronic visual experience in addition to their music. They performed the first three songs inside a cube of fabric reaching up 50 feet high, with various digital projections and light manipulations onto it (strobe lights from inside the cube made huge silhouettes of Jonsi onto the fabric). The crashing down of the fabric coincided with the pinnacle point of the third song, to reveal a stage with strategically placed lights as well as a large digital screen behind the performers. This screen showed various video throughout the performance, including clips from music videos to sprawling landscapes to nature elements moving in tempo with the music (clouds, water ripples, etc). Furthermore, the lights onstage were much more elaborate than basic color splashes; they moved in various formations, from twinkling to waves moving across the stage. The most impactful use of the lights, though, included an realtime audio trigger from the drummer, starting with a slow flash with the bass drum to full on strobe lights during more intense percussive moments.
Form Follows Function?
In a strict comparison of these two musical artists, the use of electronic media supports a form-follows-function model. Nick Cave, who engages his audience with his constantly-moving body (and connects with the viewers by singing in the same language), captures the attention of the live audience himself. Projection and videos would have been fine, though they would have maybe been superfluous to his show. On the contrary, Sigur Ros's musical performance, though extremely beautiful and musically intricate, does not activate the audience's eyes in the same way, leaving a lot of room for visual engagement through electronic media. Therefore, their lighting design and video choices were extremely deliberate, unlike the haphazardness of the Nick Cave concert.
The Venue Factor
The difference in venue is a notable observation in this comparison. Nick Cave performed at The Beacon Theatre on the Upper West Side, while Sigur Ros was at the arena at Madison Square Garden. The Beacon Theatre provides a much more intimate space compared to MSG for Mr. Cave to really connect with his audience; however, its technical capabilities are far overshadowed by the huge sports arena that are better suited for a visual show like Sigur Ros's. Interestingly, Nick Cave performed three nights at The Beacon with all shows sold out, while Sigur Ros performed only one night, though to a full house too. In other words, the two musical acts have comparable selling power, but they still chose venues that cater more towards the needs of their electronic media and performance styles (though I am sure factors like venue rental price and availability play into the decision as well).
Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds
The Beacon Theatre
Sigur Ros
Madison Square Garden
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Bird Shit Performance Review
-->
Bird Shit
A multimedia performative work
World premiere | April 7, 2013
MoMA PS1 | VW Dome
Producers: Shruti Ganguly, Anna Kooris
Upon entering MoMA
PS1 in Long Island City, Queens, one cannot miss the massive VW Dome in the
middle of the front courtyard. Inside the dome, Bird Shit is performed in the round, on an elevated white stage
complete with a large overhead truss.
Bird Shit looks to portray celebrity culture with its empty promises and
false connections through the use of theatrical dialogue, choreography, video
projections, live band, lighting design, and various physical materials
including paint and feathers. The show is primarily based off the play The Seagull by Anton Chekov (1895), as
well as Allen Ginsberg’s seminal poem, “Kaddish” (1959). The choice of The Seagull as basis for the content of
the show was highly relevant, for the plights of the four main characters in
how they relate to fame has not changed in today’s celebrity culture:
-
the
young actress: willing to do whatever it takes to become famous (turning her
back on those loyal to her, sharing her bed with an acclaimed director)
-
the
aging starlet: who dates younger men for any attempt to hold onto her youth
(including the director who is sleeping with the young actress)
-
the
successful director: who admonishes his fame (easy to do when you are famous)
and takes direction from his penis rather than his heart or head
-
the
aspiring playwright: who claims to stay true to his art though his actions
reflect that all he really wants is attention (exemplified by his numerous
botched suicides)
Though
generalizations, these characters represent archetypes of personalities we
still see in celebrity culture today, and their relationships are heightened and
enhanced by the video projections. The two characters who retain fame (the
director and the aging starlet) are portrayed via video recordings, and
projected at larger-than-life sizes on the inside of the dome walls, while the
characters looking to achieve fame perform live and “interact” with the
characters on the video. This structure proves successful in portraying the
disconnect between those with true fame and those striving at all costs to
attain it.
As far as the other
multimedia aspects of the performance, they remain neither meaningful nor superfluous.
Whenever the projections do not show pre-recorded video, they display a live-feed
from the actions onstage. These recordings are taken from three perspectives
onstage as well as a fourth angle from beneath the stage itself through some kind
of window in the floor.
The choreography is
interesting but far from prolific. Inspired by the Release Technique, the
movements remain fluid and constantly moving, perhaps in an effort to represent
the passing of time. The dancers—there are five including the actress playing
the young starlet—become strangely sexualized when white paint and feathers
drop on them from above the stage, and they begin to smear themselves with the
materials. Considering the seagull itself in the narrative represents the free-spirited
soul killed by the whims of the hunter as a metaphor for the ingénue being
corrupted by the fame machine, having the girls roll around in “bird shit” crudely
accomplishes this theme.
Other than these
aforementioned elements, the rest of the performance turns into a highly
self-righteous display of ego, starting first with the program. Actor James
Franco, though he should be praised for extending his own celebrity by
participating in less-mainstream work, is mentioned numerous times throughout
the two pages of the pamphlet as “James Franco presents Bird Shit,” “special thanks to James Franco” and “under the
guidance of James Franco.” As one then opens the pamphlet, it is revealed that
Franco will also be playing the role of the successful director. It is
extremely difficult to believe the character when the words “Fuck fame. Before
I was famous, I was a broke asshole; now that I am famous, I’m still a broke
asshole” as they come out of James Franco’s mouth when his face is twelve feet
tall and projected in three places around the audience. Any irony on the part of the writers is
overshadowed by the exploitation of Mr. Franco’s name and face, and the
arrogance of the character intended to shine through fails to do so.
Furthermore, the
role of the aging starlet is performed by none other than Marina Abramovic,
whose majority of screentime is spent on the brink of making out with James
Franco. Intending to provoke the audience by showing sexuality between a
notably older woman and young man feels over-the-top: is this even provocative
anymore? we see it all the time on reality tv and newsstands. Additionally, the
personalities of Abramovic and Franco are too prevalent, making the scene less
artistic and more egocentric. Albeit the director and aging actress characters
are supposed to be self-absorbed, and the massive projections certainly add to
the spectacle, but Abramovic and Franco seem to want to challenge the audience with
the subtext: “We are these two great, multimedia, artistic individuals… Do you
want to see us make out?... Well, we are just going to tease you.” Here, the
projections actually hurt the storyline by enhancing Abramovic and Franco so
much that they no longer seem part of the cast.
If the live and
recorded roles were inversed, with Abramovic and Franco performing live to the
larger-than-life wannabe celebrity characters, the performance would have
reached a much deeper level. Arrogance would be traded in for a yearning to
connect. It would have been much easier to believe Franco’s “Fuck fame”
comments if he were the small person trying to interact with the oversized
“nobody” characters.
Unfortunately, the
glimpses of artistic thought and development are not strong enough to shine
through the momentum of the Franco (anti-)Fame Machine, and upon exiting the
dome, one feels that all they did was simply encourage Mr. Franco’s celebrity
status.
*A note must be made about the live band,
aptly named Yeah Well, Whatever, who live up to their name but are excused
since apathy seems to be their shtick.
Spring Awakening Performance Review
-->
Spring Awakening – A New
Musical
New York University | Tisch School of the
Arts
February 28, 2013
Director: Kenneth Noel Mitchell
NYU’s production of
Spring Awakening (2006), originally
by Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater, provided new interpretations of the
well-known musical, including thematic and technological additions relating to
the 21st century.
The performance
chose to preserve certain aesthetics of the popular Broadway production (which allude
to the original 1891 work by Frank Wedekind) while attempting to juxtapose
current day trends on the production. A cohesive example of this is the
costuming. The cast is split into two groups, the teenagers and the adults. The
teenagers all wear costumes consistent with the Broadway show: overly feminine
frocks for the girls, and traditional military school uniforms for the boys.
The costumes for the adults, however, deviate drastically from the Broadway
show. On Broadway, the adults also wore costumes consistent with the 1891
Germany garb; in this production, they were clothed in overt S&M costumes:
black/white pleather, corsets, fishnet thighhighs, with gothic make-up to
match. This choice highlighted two of the main themes of the storyline well, if
only a bit crudely: the isolation of one generation from the one prior, and
sexual awakening.
What gave the
performance a technological and multimedia angle was the inclusion of
half-a-dozen monitors distributed throughout the set. The screens displayed
visuals throughout the entire musical—names of each musical number, metaphoric
images, and even live feed—as yet another layer of the current era juxtaposed
on the original writing. These multimedia layers certainly enhanced the
storyline at times, but not consistently throughout the performance.
When the video
worked
“The Word of Your
Body”
The most
artistically successful use of the video occurred during the song “The Word of
Your Body,” where the two teenage characters Wendla Bergmann and Melchior Gabor
reunite under a tree after not seeing each other in some time. The lyrics talk
of innocent interest in the opposite sex, and how each is slightly scared of
potentially hurting the other during their path of sexual awareness. During the
song, the video showed what seemed to be the two characters lovingly engaging
in some rudimentary sexual activity (rolling on the floor, shifting positions);
though with closer attention, the footage actually served as a forecast to an
upcoming scene where Melchior is beating Wendla. The footage of the fight was
slowed down to look like lovemaking, but the choreography was verbatim to the
fight scene two songs later. This play on images served the story well,
providing added visual information to the song that deepened the relationship
between the characters.
“And Then There
Were None”
The use of the
monitors in “And Then There Were None,” a song that verbalizes a letter from
Melchior’s Mother to her son’s friend Mortiz Steifel, highlight the theme of
current trends versus older traditions. As the woman sings the lines of her
letter, understood to have been handwritten in the original script, the
monitors showed the exact letter being typed out in a Facebook message. A clear
critique on communication modes of today, the imagery enhanced the gap between
the generations, trivializing the content of her letter even more than the
words already do.
When the video
detracted
“All That’s Known”
The third song of
the show, “All That’s Known” housed the only time a live-feedback loop was used
during the show, and for good reason. The delay between the live and the looped
was too large, and as a result, looked like a failed attempt at accomplishing
new technology. Since this song is at the very beginning of the show, it set an
amateurish tone basically from the get-go.
“Don’t Do Sadness”
The visuals during
“Don’t Do Sadness” were a stark contrast to the success of “The Word of Your Body.”
Moritz, in his depression, wishes to liken himself to the carefree life of a
butterfly. It is clear that he is singing from a very dark place, yet the
imagery on the monitors shows an animated literal interpretation of the
metaphor. A brightly colored butterfly bouncing from flower to flower does not
provide a play-on-words here, but rather trivializes the entire scene.
Together, the costuming and multimedia aspects, despite the times it destracted, of the NYU production gave it an individuality in comparison to the original musical, and the juxtaposition of the modern day paradigms over the traditional aesthetics elevated the meaning behind the storyline itself.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Exit12 Rehearsal
I was extremely grateful to observe last week's Exit12 rehearsal for Virtual Arts TV's Live-Streamed Performing Arts Festival.
I enjoyed that the work expands a notable amount of time (at least half an hour, easily 45 minutes with the video footage), and that each section highlights a different aspect of wartime life with ample weight. The music and readings enhance the performance by deepening the content. Lastly, the prevalence of ballet was both surprising and fantastic, inadvertently (or perhaps purposefully) exhibiting the dichotomy of standardized canons with modern philosophies and emotions, also reflected in the content itself.
The Q&A with Artistic Director Roman Baca proved very insightful. He spoke about the collaboration with the Camera Operating Director, and his trust in her decisions about which camera will be streamed at which time, noting that very little choreographic decisions were based on the placement of the cameras or timing of the streaming footage. I was honestly surprised that he took such a back seat in this process. I am not saying that he should dictate every single shot, but I do think he is not tapping into the full potential of working with the cameras. Throughout the substantial time of the performance, I think he could have made five or six choreographic choices based on specific placement and streaming of the cameras. For example, the repetition of the percussive movements in the "group dance" section could be highlighted by zooming in on the dancer's movements from a specific angle.
I enjoyed that the work expands a notable amount of time (at least half an hour, easily 45 minutes with the video footage), and that each section highlights a different aspect of wartime life with ample weight. The music and readings enhance the performance by deepening the content. Lastly, the prevalence of ballet was both surprising and fantastic, inadvertently (or perhaps purposefully) exhibiting the dichotomy of standardized canons with modern philosophies and emotions, also reflected in the content itself.
The Q&A with Artistic Director Roman Baca proved very insightful. He spoke about the collaboration with the Camera Operating Director, and his trust in her decisions about which camera will be streamed at which time, noting that very little choreographic decisions were based on the placement of the cameras or timing of the streaming footage. I was honestly surprised that he took such a back seat in this process. I am not saying that he should dictate every single shot, but I do think he is not tapping into the full potential of working with the cameras. Throughout the substantial time of the performance, I think he could have made five or six choreographic choices based on specific placement and streaming of the cameras. For example, the repetition of the percussive movements in the "group dance" section could be highlighted by zooming in on the dancer's movements from a specific angle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)