This section is equivalent to your standard about section. Here is where I try to explain what it is that I do and why, what is it that I am about.
dance science
What I like to call “dance science” is a research-centric approach to (dancing) that explores the capacity of the medium to extrapolate at the scale of (the human body in) motion something of what otherwise occurs or operates exclusively at the scale of cellular intra-action. In the context of “dance science” the superficial (literally meaning: concerning the surface, the visible to the naked eye, the skin) is only as interesting as it is capable of evidencing that an activity under-the-surface has indeed taken place. The further purpose of “dance science” emerges with the question: what under-the-surface activity does motion registered at the scale of surface evidence? And how?
evidencing
The process or practice of evidencing is the process or practice of narrowing down, or zeroing in on, or developing, or organising standards for perceiving or measuring or comprehending those relational tiles that bind specific evidence (the superficial) to specific data (the internal, the experiential).
#fractalisation #emergence #emergentstrategy #adriennemareebrown
(dancing)
I work with a non-verbal medium (dancing) in the context of professionalised art-making that tends to concern itself with experiment-conducting and knowledge-discovery. One of the key characteristics of the medium is in the fact that (dancing) instrumentalises duration as a restriction whilst calibrating the value of “restriction” relative to the value of “material”. “Material,” in other words, is inseparable from its duration. Changing the duration of “material” means transforming or else entirely replacing “material” with another “material.” To realise the duration of “material,” on the other hand, is to discover, i.e. articulate, “material.”
In comparison, classical approaches will name duration the responsibility of the choreographer or the dramaturg and calibrate its values to preconceived, i.e. conservative, theatrical and linear narrative standards. The dancer’s job will be to follow the directions given and adjust the duration without transforming the material. The two standards—classical and experimental—are incompatible, which makes them incomparable.
“Material” in (dancing) is a specific bodily state, behavioural or an affective state, evidenced by the dancer’s dancing in response to the dancer’s working on or with a choreographic principle or a research question. In that it is material, “material” in (dancing) isn’t necessarily dependent on the dancer’s mood, their will or intention, or cognitive capacity. Even their stamina. “Material” is a thing of affect, is a thing of being under influence. Working with “materials” requires skill, precision, and a detailed understanding of one’s psycho-somatic capabilities and psycho-physical boundaries.
[…]
Dancers working with “materials” run the risk of being exposed by the “materials” they are working with in ways they might not choose to be, were they capable of making a choice. Sometimes dancers aren’t capable of making editorial choices in real time because they are under the influence of “material”, which may mean: entirely un-self-consicous. This means, amongst other things, that dancers working with “materials” are easy to exploit.