Report, on working with Elinor Tollerz Bratteby

by pavleheidler

for context

Often cited as the experiment that led to Quantum Field Theory, the two-slit experiment demonstrated that under specific conditions both photons (light) and electrons (matter) exhibit properties of both waves and particles. One of the key insights that emerge in the context of the two-slit experiment suggests that what we measure with determines what we can measure. What I appreciate about this principle is that, instead of questioning the nature of the observable universe, it focuses on the relative importance of the method of one’s engagement with the universe, while requiring an acknowledgement of one’s observational apparatus and procedure.

What I’ve observed teaching and mentoring over the years is that the majority of the artists working today in the field of dance struggle with acknowledging their observational procedures and apparatuses. I found that dance artists, as a demographic, tend towards making their decisions haphazardly, i.e., “intuitively”, whilst associating the chaotic and often abusive and exhausting nature of their “intuitive” processes with “art” and “artistry”. When introduced to experiment many of the artists I worked with met experiment with resistance, claiming that the methodological rigour that experiment requires is antithetic to “art” and “artistry”. As a result, my aim in most cases was and is to show positive examples of experiment, and demonstrate how experiment creates an opportunity for the artist to observe themselves at work, then reflect and define their preferred observational apparatus and procedure, whilst establishing critical and ethically conscious control over their process without losing any of their integrity, be that integrity artistic or otherwise.

with Elinor

Over a period of several months, I met Elinor in the studio, at a café, and outdoors. Each of the environments was chosen relative to how we felt that day and what we wanted to discuss. Following the principle what we measure with determines what we can measure, I wanted to evidence how different environments can appeal to different types of conversations, discussions, or aspects of an artist’s practice.

We met in the studio when we wanted to (discuss) practice. We met at a café when we wanted to feel encouraged to stay casual in our discussion. In this environment we focused on any, often frustrating aspect that comes with our profession; e.g., the social, and the economic. We met outdoors when we wanted to contemplate existential matters, consider poetic and philosophical questions, and meander through our conversation with no particular end in mind. One story I told Elinor during our walk is the story of the famous Belgian choreographer Anne Theresa de Keersmaeker’s practice called My Walking is My Dancing. This emergent practice, in the way I experienced it, articulates a way to develop a dance by walking, by observing walking, by qualifying different aspects of walking thereby aestheticising them, and by appreciating the outcomes of observational attention on one’s walking; observational attention has a way of elevating one’s movement (in this case, walking) to the point of it (one’s movement, one’s walking) becoming easily recognisable as dancing. This is another example of my continued referring to the principle what we measure with determines what we can measure, whereby the telling of the story on a walk shifted or influenced our perception of walking. By telling this story on a walk I’d hoped to transform the walk from something functional (pedestrian) to something more-than-functional (aesthetic, artistic, ‘practice-istic’). I later wondered at the impact of this perceptual shift on our thinking, feeling, and imagining dancing.

In the studio, we’d start with Elinor who’d present or share an aspect of a practice she’d been developing. Following her initial sharing, I’d ask her to do what she’d done again, then ask her to qualify the difference between the two experiences she’d had. I’d follow up by qualifying the differences between the two experiences I’d had observing the two instances of her sharing. By engaging in repetition, I’d begin engaging in the study of experiment. By asking Elinor to describe the difference between the two experiences she’d had, I’d begin engaging in the study of qualification, and specifically, qualification of one’s lived experience. By following Elinor’s descriptions with my own, I’d continue engaging in the study of qualification while raising the complexity of our study. Because, of course, by listening to my experience, we were now having to account not only for the difference between my experience and Elinor’s, but for the difference between her intended affect on me (evidenced, for example, in Elinor’s description of her score or her motivation) and her actual affect on me (evidenced in my reporting on my lived experience). This is yet another instance of my continued referring to the principle what we measure with determines what we can measure, one in which I’m trying to show that artistic success is not a linear matter. “Imagine”, I told Elinor, “that you succeeded in affecting me in exactly the way you intended. Wouldn’t that feel too much like Hollywood? I think we feel like we’ve experienced something magical today exactly because you had your own experience and I had mine, and we had those at the same time. We met, we felt, together. And alone. Art, I think, is meant to celebrate contradiction and acknowledge the diversity in and of human perception. I hope here we’ve exemplified one way to make the holding of that contradiction ethically and knowledgeably possible. And I hope that, as a performer and a maker, you’re getting a sense of what it takes, technically speaking, to treat your audience as collaborator, rather than someone who needs to be satisfied, i.e., entertained. I understand these are big things we are suddenly talking about, but here we are.”

in closing

As I said in one email, thank you for creating this opportunity for Elinor and me. I hope the examples described above help imagine how we’ve spent the time we’ve been awarded with. It is rarely the case that one artist gets to support another so fully and intentionally through a formative experience nonetheless and with institutional support. It is easy for artists these days to move into the commercially viable sector of the arts or leave the arts altogether for the entertainment industry. Many support systems have been put in place that encourage artists to make that move. With this grant, you’ve potentially created a support system that could encourage artists to develop both reasons and strategies to remain with the experimental, or stay with the trouble, i.e., with the visionary. And so find new ways to both protect and develop spaces in this world that are meant to encourage a diversity of experience.

artists, as I recently wrote in my mission statement, are like gardeners of alternatives, tenders of options, committed to protecting the complexity in texture and range of what it could mean to be alive.

Thank you for your time,

pavleheidler (they/them) (ADHD-autism) pavleheidler@pavleheidler.com www.pavleheidler.com