15.5.07

The Digital Body: History of Body Visibility



text by Bojana Kunst
First published in: Digitized Bodies / Virtual Spectacles, ed. Nina Czegledy, Ludwig Museum Budapest, Budapest 2001, p. 13 - 28

Keywords: history of the body, representation of the body, body - machine relationship, visibility of the body, enlightenment anatomy, physiognomy, energy, body as the motor, digital body.

When Gandhi was asked once what he thought of Western civilization, one of his complaints was about modern western medicine. It amazed him that the average Europian was so ready to "hand over the custody of his body to the experts (...) as if it were an appendage (...) for which he bore no responsibility."1 (Pareth, 1989) The mass revival of the body in the art and culture of the last two decades of 20th Century somehow reflects similar problem with the body described in Gandhi's statement; the body became a mere possesion, a condition divorced from the self, even obsolete body, characterized by fake beauty, identity and integrity; fragmentary body, defeated by the advance machinery, thought and evolution. In other words, the body is viewed as something that should be divorced, despised, dissected and finally transformed. We could say that the entire 20th century is marked by a desintegration of the bodily structure, and by the omnipresent awareness of its availability, fragility and profanity. The function of the human body is finnaly reduced to that of a container (Stelarc), a specimen for the analysis of man's evolutionary and physiological potentials (Kac, CAE), a digital matrix, to that of mere material subjected to various operative and techonological transformations (Orlan, Acker).

But we could also understood this phenomena from the historical point of view: as the result of reaching the final point of the dichotomy between the physical and the artificial, which through the history of modernity defined the modes of production of bodily images, shaping of the body visibility, predictability and transparency. The contemporary dissapearing of the borders between life and non-life, organic and technologic, natural and artificial, physical and artificial, which strongly influenced the bodily disintegration and fragmentation in contemporary art and culture, has a long history and its deeply inscribed in our understanding of the physical which was always in modernity inevitably defined and connected with the field of artificial.

From the 17th century, Descartes' definition of the machine animale represents the basic model of the body explanation and sets the basic paradigm governing the modern scientific visibility of the body - the paradigm of the body as mechanism, where the body gains status of a field of knowledge. Mechanism therefore became the demonstration of the bodily operativity and not anymore connected to the divine. In the old myths and religion stories the artificial had a special place: it was the sign for the bordeline body, which turned upside down the relationship between earth and heaven; the place where the fundamental questions on the human relationship with the divine could be placed. When Descartes argumented the analogy between human and the machine, is artificial slowly but firmly moved from the mithology into the middle of the developing scientific thought, understood not as a secret but as a basic mode of operativity, functionality and rational understanding. From this point of wiev the example of the enlightenment anatomists is especially interesting because it is disclosing to us some important seeds of contemporary visibility and understanding of the body in it's relationship to the artificial. An analytical comparison of the 18th century anatomical views with the modern obsession with the fragmentary, dissected body can help us understand the modern crave to uncover the epidermal surface and contemporary dissapearing of the borders between life and non-life.

The status of 18th century anatomists was very much the same as that of sculptors, painters and architects, with an additional, yet essential mission to mediate between science and art. Anatomists were the ones authorized to discover formae in profundis and thus differentiate between the external form and the essence hidden underneath, between the visible and the invisible. "It permitted the artist to observe more than he could conventionally see. He was thus able to represent forms concealed beneath an occluding matter more faithfully, because they were now clear to his mind."2 (Gerdy, 1829) Determined to get to the bottom of the invisible, anatomy was still not an objective science but rather a moral and aesthetic strategy; by means of cutting, dissection, »scientific« explanations of the unknown and obscure, as well as by the measuring, counting and classifying of formae in profundis, it began to introduce the absent, the Other Body. By means of differentiation of layers and visible segments, it established the definition of an ideal body, and clearly indicated the elements that differed from it. The impudent classification was candidly present in anatomical depictions and collections, meant as a visual warning – or rather, as whole museums of such warnings, showing the inexorable connection between life and death, between interior and exterior, between looks, morals and beauty. "Medical inventions can provide good examples for ethics ", wrote the French doctor Pierre Roussel and he adds: "it is impossible for philosophy to determine the moral strength of man without taking into consideration the organization of the body."3 (Roussel, 1775) The then dialectic of one's interior and exterior was that of competence, determined by the Other Body, resulting in a moral process and the establishment of aesthetic principles. The more secrets of the body we uncover, the more empty and artificial it becomes, subjected to systematization, generalization, control and universal anticipation. At this point, we can perhaps understand some of today hardly comprehensible obsessions of the anatomists of that time, who attempted to combine parts of different corpses into most unusual compositions, e.g. Giovanni Aldini., who tried to combine different limbs, heads etc. by means of galvanism. The famous collection of Frederik Ruysch (1638 – 1731), Dutch doctor and artist, is of a similar kind. With a special method of preparation he had himself invented, Ruysch managed to create a fantastic museum of curiosities, mainly consisted of children's dead bodies and their various parts (as Ruysch worked as chief obstetrician in Amsterdam), dressed and placed on silk pillows. Ruysch’s bizarre creations, as well as other images and collections (for example that of anatomical wax figures owned by the Italian doctor Felice Fontana in the 18th century) reveal that, despite the vanishing mysteries of the body, the people of that time were still further from grasping it in its entirety than they thought they were. Furthermore, the dissected body was occupied by the ideal image which subjected it to systhematizations, emptying the content under the epidermal surface in order to substitute it with a generalized image showing the people what their bodies should have been like. It constantly reminded them of the exclusiveness of the ideal, laying the foundation for the body engineering of the future. No wonder that the strong connection between anatomical views and aesthetics gave birth to another branch of « science » - physiognomy - which readily transformed the tension of the sublime into a most vulgar connection between the interior and exterior of the body – the Beautiful Soul and the physical constitution reflecting its ideals.

The metaphor of the machine was reflected in the specific kind of physical training which, by means of its mechanic psychology, allured to a dialectics between a person's internal and external features. The elaborate system of this dialectics was first shattered in the 19th century. Operativity and predictability, the modes establishing the analogy between the body and machines, were replaced by a unity of opposites, an elusiveness that blurred the boundaries between the living and the non-living, the internal and the external. Predictable causality and operative order gave way to complex, automated systems, energetic motors, immaterial devices. As opposed to the enlightenment, the romanticism and the early 19th century no longer had insight into the operation of machines. Machines no longer evoked the reassuring feeling of predictability – that of a universal order dwelling beneath a machine’s delusive surface. Artificial structure grew into an enormous system characterized by elusiveness and unpredictability, and familiar to people only by effects. Through the 19th century, the body was increasingly confronted with various mechanisms that interfered with its ways of operation, transformed its muscular mass, rhythm and energy, demanded an adaptation to a new functionality and forms, and essentially influenced the production of bodily images. The body was to face new challenges – those of energy and dynamic engines. New representation modes - like energy, electricity, kinetics- were introduced into the medical practice (which replaced morbid theatrality of the anatomy lesson) and were followed later by different devices which all were there to measure body's invisible movement, pulsations, energy, ryhtems. But the most influential techniques which shatered the borders of body's visibility were certainly X-rays, followed later in the 20th century by sofisticated digital modes of representation - CET, PET, the digital visualisation of the cell, atom, genom, etc. 4

Of course, the moral aspects of anatomy and the energetic notion of the body as the motor (which had it's own neurotic morality based on the enthropy and exhaustion) have long been substituted by objective and analitical scientific methods. But I would agree with Stafford that several inductive patterns still remain - as part of contemporary digital, scientific, technological and aesthetic views of the body.5 (Stafford, 1991) It is true of course, that with the discovery of X-rays, there have been a radical change of the depicting and decoding of the human body and of producing the moral meanings: the body is no longer approached by the intimacy (or morbidity) of direct physical contact, which disclosed us it's operativity and correspondance or non-correspondance with the universal order. The tactility of the anatomy lesson is surpassed with clean technological filters where the image of the body is created by means of computers and technology; and therefore transmuted into a dematerialised graph, matrix, shadow, combination of colors and stripes, hyper-texts.6 The weak body of the matrix and binary codes no longer succumbs to laws of physics, but primarily to administrative and social regulation, statistics, and cognitive enthusiasm. But the main problem is the same - the image of the body always remains based on a generalization, systematization and artificiality.

Despite the fact that modern medicine, science and art present the body as a mere reconstruction, with the organism transformed into codes and heaps of binary files, we can still trace a remnant of the old views originating in the age of Enlightenment, when, for the first time in history, "we gained an access to the information - through the methodic autopsy procedure"7 (Stafford, 1991) According to Stafford, modern people still believe that, by the observation of visual characteristics, they can discover something about the very essence of man, even more, we seem to believe that, by means of further combinations of these characteristics, we can compose an »ideal« human being (for example, by means of genetics), and one fit for the new challenges set to its survival by technology. The judgements of the body remain those acquired by looking into its interior; furthermore, the body turned inside out is becoming a document of identification and an insurance chip. In the future, it will probably play an important part in job interviews, family planing, the predicting of one's predisposition to disease or crime and the evaluation of one's genetic material etc. Today, high technology provides the same illusion as that of the microscope in the age of Enlightenment, providing a wonderful ability of magnification - and the illusion that we can in fact catch sight of the invisible, flawless information net, the virtual and statistical field of the ideal body.

What we see is an image, with its aesthetic qualities preserved as a decyphering system of lines, vectors, geometric shapes, and colours. The generalisation is even furthered by cybernetic worlds creating bodies of data by means of classifications, differentiations and data input. The striving towards the artificial has marked the entire modern history of the body, reaching its bizarre climax in plastic surgery and commercial genetics, a practical outcome of constant studies of physical characteristics deviating from the ideal body - and a practical transfer of artistic strategies (colour, point, line) to the body by means of scalpels. With the introduction of plastic surgery, aesthetic becomes an applicative science studying the possibilities of commercially fooling the dialectic of one's exterior and interior, in order to create the ideal and successful body by means of tactile incisions.

The recent exhibition of corpses and body parts by Gunther von Hagens in Vienna, the dissected animals in formalin by Damien Hirst, the continuous plastic operations of Orlan and Elisabeth Dyn, the biogenetic experiments of Eduardo Kac and numerous other phenomena indicate that the anatomical passion of man has again been reignited. This time, however, it is no longer a privilege of a developing branch of science, but more or less an artistic attempt to mercilessly expose and eradicate the remaining mysteries of the body. The disclosure is no longer meant as a mysterious allegory, a warning and moral classification as was the case with the anatomical artist of the Enlightement. The fragmentary and dissected body is a modern metaphore representing the most direct threat to the problematic normative depiction of the body as a whole, disclosing its fragile and paradoxical potentiality. It reveals the paradoxical, manipulative and epistemologically complicated character of modern generalizations as well as the illusion of the depiction of the body as a whole, which, unfortunately, is still considered as the aim of physical transformation. Modern man has successfully overcome the phantazmatic moral classifications created in the 18th century, but only to substitute them for a world without secrets, naked flesh, epidermal sacks, creation of doubles and clones, and genetic legitimation turned inside out.

In this sense, it is present as a scandal which, rightly advocates the profanity and disclosure of the body. It is the radicality of the strategy that most clearly reflects the problematic character of ideal images and shows that the understanding of our bodies and ourselves has entered a new dimension: especcialy with a possibility to realize a desire to destroy our current biological design and replace it with a more advanced form. The result expected from these radical strategies is a non-suffering, post-human body, we could also say a cyborg. But this is non-painfull utopia just on the first sight. Quite the contrary, there should be a strong awarennes that every body is created by painful modifications and endless fights inside the body itself (my body is my battleground, says Barbara Kruger in the famous poster from the eighties). The body turns into an elusive field of dislocation, refecting several characteristics of the cyborg as described by Haraway; it is strongly committed to "partiality, irony, intimacy and corruptness; a utopia in constant opposition, robbed of all innocence."8 (Haraway, 1991) It can no longer be grasped as a totality or be seen in the mirror to show us the reflection of Apollo (the ideal body). Instead, the totality of the body is present as a contrast, fragment, a diffused net, as the stability of the unstable which constantly challenges its boundaries, and the questions of the body's as a whole are emerging directly from the pain of the incision.



- - -


1. Pareth B. 1989. Gandhi's Political Philosophy. London: Macmillian, p. 26.

2. Gerdy P. N. 1829. Anatomie des formes extérieures du corps humains, aplliqué a la peinture, a la sculpture et a la chirugie. In Stafford B. M. 1991. Body Criticism, Imaging the Unseen in Enlightenment Art and Medicine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, p. 54.

3. Roussel P. 1775. Système physique et moral de la femme, ou tableau philosophique de la constitution, de l'état organique, de témperament, des moeurs & des fonctions propres au sexe. Quoted in: Schiebinger L: Skeletons in the Closet: The First Illustrations of the Female Skeleton in Eighteenth-Century Anatomy. In Gallagher C. & Laqueur T., ed. 1987. The Making of Modern Body. Berkeley & Los Angeles & London: University of California Press, p. 68.

4. An important contribution to the invention of new instruments was already that of the enlightenment medicine; their instruments, however, were devised a different view upon the body. Enlightenment studies were focussed upon the relation between bodily and psychic substances - the phantasm of an invisible soul which could be read or detected by those entitled. Governing the human body were animalic vapour, mystic spirits, unpredictable gasses, electric pneuma, currents of animal magnetism which could determine the functioning of the body and soul, or result from the universal soul - a concept which, due to Messner, was widely popular among the aristocracy of the late 18th century. Medical instruments of the 19th century, however, graphically presented individual bodies (or persons), physical and life lines of their functioning, expectation and efficiency, as well as their rhythmic pulsation in relation to space and time.

5. Stafford B. M. 1991. Body Criticism, Imaging the Unseen in Enlightenment Art and Medicine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

6. On this problem wrote Eugene Thacker. In Thacker E. Digital Anatomy and the Hyper-Texted Body. Nettime Archive: www.factory.org./nettime/.

7. Stafford B. M. 1991. Body Criticism, Imaging the Unseen in Enlightenment Art and Medicine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, p. 145.
With detailed anatomical depicitons of male and female bodies, the CD-ROM Visible Human Project could be viewed as a digital Fontana’s theatre, with the corporealities functioning as nets (different ftp pages), data accumulations, transfers and animations. According to E. Thacker, “digital anatomy does not represent parts of the body, but a variety of binary files.” In: Thacker E. Digital Anatomy and the Hyper-Texted Body. Nettime Archive: www.factory.org./nettime/.

8. Haraway Donna J. 1991. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, pp. 148 - 249.

5.5.07

some help...

Hi!
How are you from where you are, all around the Mediterranean?

Today I’m mostly interested by the Middle Eastern and North African countries.

I’m doing a research about contemporary art in the Arab world. I would like to have your feelings from outside, your perceptions. It can be for Art in general or for dance in particular.

My questions are about the situation of the artist in his/her specific country and in other Arab countries (space for creation, censure, subvention, religion, war, history…)how to exist as an international contemporary artist artistic preoccupations the links between Arab artistsdifference between today situation and 10 years ago the perspectives, expectation, for the next 5 years

I know that you are very busy but if you can share with me some ideas, your point of views, articles, pictures,…it could be very interesting and of a great help for me
Actually I have a public presentation about this topic in June and most of the audience will be European so it is my role as an Arab to give some realities and to correct wrong ideas that European people might have.

Bisou
hind

what do we have in common??

Hi Idoia
Thanks for your nice input... and also for the nice text ;-)
Concerning your question about mediterranean dance, if it has something to do with the circle and clapping... i really don't know... but if it has to do... here it goes a video of one 1920's London night club that shows you that this story about being in a circle and clapping would not be definetly a mediterranean dance characteristic ;-)



This is not only because UK is not really a mediterranean country, but also because being in a circle and clapping it's has to do with a more lot of other things, rather that only with dance (altought knowing and recognizing that this circle and clapping story it's in a certain way related with the origins of dance)but definetly I think that it has nothing to do literally and specifically with mediterranean dance...
So, when I put the question " can we speak about Mediterranean Dance?" on the table, it was because i was thinking on what could be, let's say like this, the caractheristics of contemporary dance from the Mediterranean countries...what do we have all in common : we all are artists, and we all come and work in mediterranean countries... that's for shore... we all share a certain kind of same culture... the mediterranean culture... so my question was also how does this have and influence in our artistic works...i'm asking this because in personally believe that the artistic works are in a certain way related with the context where they're developed.
But can we speak about a mediterranean dance or is it everything so globalized that in a certain way the indentity the cultural identity is also getting globalized???
For example, the kind of artistic works coming from north america are completly different to the kind of artistic works produced in Europe, etc...
Well... the main question is: WHAT DO WE HAVE IN COMMON? or WHAT DO OUR ARTISTIC WORKS HAVE IN COMMON??? I know that for being able to answer this question, first we need to get to know each other's work better (and this is of course is one of our aims in this project), for then trying to work together... with what we have in common or with our differences... and i think this blog should be used to open these kind of debates...and others.

R.

3.5.07

opening up the space for unlimited possiblities...

Dear all:

I was trying to comunicate you thelepatically. ¿Did it work?
Mediterranean dance. ¿Do it has to do with the circle and claping?
Look a this video of three Asiatics in a 12-day Mediterranean Cruises and choreographing a dance. It has to do with an improvisation that Florent proposed us...

I brougth this text...about colaboration.

I hope you are doing very well.

I will be more serious next time.

Idoia


The lecture of Bojana Kunst unedited

Collaboration, possibility and inhabitancy

“What we do not choose is what we can most easily share, or what we can’t avoid sharing” (Brian Holmes, Collective creativity, 87)


I. Common

Russian group of artists and theoreticians, named after the famous Lenin book What is to be done / Chto delat, participated in the latest exhibition in Kassel, Fridericianum, dedicated to Collective creativity with a work entitled with the same enigmatic name oriented towards the future of activity: What is to be done. In the dark room there were two screens, one beside each other, on one there was a straight succession of slides, still shots of the members of the group What is to be done, on another there were subtitles of their discussion, talking about ways of working together, ideologies of the collectivity and collaboration, oscillating between irony and dedication, individual approaches and more objective statements, it was a talk of friends and collaborators at the same time. This was the group of young people, standing with some drinks and cigarettes in some anonymous urban place in the middle of the cold night, there was a kind of the weed ridden wall to stand on or seat down, the background was dark and enlightened only with the lights necessary for the video. The group of people could not be more contingent in their nightly arrangement, almost incoherent, nothing kept them together as the anonymous place of the night and non-obligatory discussion, there was something light, almost easygoing in the dark and cold air. But then at the end of the discussion the last slide of the group standing together turned to be combined with another image on the second screen, where we can suddenly see the well-known painting of Victor Popkov, The builders of Bratsk from the sixthies. The image done in the style of socialist realism was showing the group of workers, their bodies and poses collectively dedicated to the task. The spatial arrangement of the chto delat people and the workers which heroically build the Syberian city of Bratsk was entirely the same but at the same time two images could not be more apart.

What is interesting in this project is exactly this connection between two displays of being together, the connection which is disclosing us the ways of being together, of presenting the common of the group. In the first image the common seems more as an contingent supplement of the photographic frame, the supplement of the common moment, of being together in the present. In the second image the common is the only thing which is depicted, the people are there together because of their common future, the common here is not the appendix but the core of depiction. The gap among the same displays has therefore surely something to do with the ways of depicting the common of the group, which is not only the disposition of the people in the space as on the documentary photography, but it is also a disposition of the time, an allegory of the common and community. Young artists and theoreticians are not together, because their togetherness would be subjugated to progress, teleology, finality, to the future common goal. The common here is more an appendix of the framed moment, the community framed in the still shot is more like a community as would be described by Jean Luc Nancy: “community on the contrary is ordinary being together, without any assumption of common identity, without any strong intensity, but exposed to banality, to the ‘common’ of existence.” It is therefore not the common dominated by finality, which can take different forms (total man, society without classes, liberated body, liberated subjectivity etc) (like form the images of the theatre of the sixthies). It is not the common tightly intertwined with the active transformation of the history in the 20th century, but the common reduced to the ordinary being together, deprived of all the historical tasks. If we are following Jean Luc Nancy, this would then be the common of “always already”, this what we already share in relation to our banal and daily life (like the question of our own finitude, by example), the “sacred profane” under our feats which arrange us together incoherently on the picture. This is then the common where there is no exchange, no universality, no economy, no coherence, because it is at the same time common which is unshearable, it could be then more the common of the common awakening of what already holds us together, what is already giving us the possibility to be together, but the possibility which always has to be revelaled anew, possibility of the common has to be always regained, required again, because it is “always already” there.

The reduction of the common to its everyday banality and to almost egalitarian equality of all the experiences , can be one of the reasons why the people from the group What is to be done seem to be entangled in a much lighter way into the discussion, they even seem to be together there only incoherently, contingently, they are present in the contingent surrounding of the anonymous night and autumn cold. The workers on Popkov’s image are on the opposite side not really contingently together, they are determined by finality which is in their particular case finalisation of the magnificent future socialist city of Bresk. That this finalisation can be completed with sucess the rest of their body is also needed – and they are on the picture together depicted in the common of work, even if they are actually taking the break - they can be resting only as representatives of the mass of workers still working behind them, hidden in dubious darkness from behind. Even in the moment of rest, pause, break, when being on ease with the body and mind, smoking, they cannot be reduced to contingency, incoherence, they are always in a pose, where connection between them is clearly visibile. (*the rest and neoliberalism) Both images are similar excatly in this moment of suspens, which opens up also similarities in their spatial arrangement: the empty moment of posing and doing nothing. But there is also a huge difference at work here, which can be best described with the subtitle from the last frame of "What is to be done" video: “There are thousands of workers behind the builders of Bratsk, but who is behind us?” Behind the first video there is void space, anonymus darkness, empty night in which young people seems to be drinking and talking, behind the second image we know that there is something going on all the time. First group is framed together in a void, second one in a space which is so occupied than you just cannot be apart. In the first group the common is a contingent appearance of proximity of the people talking, it is true, that they are talking about their work, but the work here is not what is common to them, the common here is the void of night, an anonymus place and time, when and where they can smoke, drink and talk and taking the positions in the void. In the second image the community is arriving from the domain of work, it is produced all the time, even in the moment of rest, of suspens of the work. That's why we have here two spatial arrangements – first one in the void, another one in the place which is already full, which is already named: the place where the common being and spatial arrangement is already pressuposed. Or as Jean Luc Nancy said: "That is why community cannot arise from domain of the work. One does not produce it, one experiences or one is constituted by it, as the experience of finitude. Community understood as a work or through its works would presupose that a common being, as such, be objectifiable and producible (in sites, persons, buildings, discourses, institutions, symbols: in short in subjects)." The common being in Popkov's case is the modern city of Bresk, which is already defining the common before being build (it is defining the places, institutions and subjectivities). Or to take more present example: the common being as a flow of global collaboration, this common of the symbolic capital, flow of money, people, signs, traveling, producing, negotiating: this the most popular global common of work which is with its simulated images deeply defining our understanding of relationality, multipliticity and the other – as the flowing sign of the global common layers of communication. That's why Nancy (among other reasons which are also interesting – especially the understanding of the community and loss, which can be also very nicely linked to traveling, but we can touch this in our discusionns in later days) is saying that what we need is an inoperative community: "community necesarrily take the place in what Blanchot has called unworking, reffering to that which, before or beyond the work withdraws from the work, and which, no longer having to do either with production or with complection, enocunters interruption, fragmentation, suspension. Or a little bit later in his text Inoperative Community: Community is given to us – or we are given and abandoned to the community: a gift to be renewed and communicated, it is not a work to be done or produced. But it is a task which is different: an infinite task at the heart of finitude." This exsistential revealing of the common is opening up the singular towards the finitude and death, towards the immanent presence of our being, which is singular yet at the same time given to community to enable the signularity itself.

I would agree with this description which opens community to the void, to the procesuallity of being together and to the impossibiltiy of the presuposed common being, but at the same time there are many questions still open, which I would like to briefly touch in this talk. Let's say these are pragmatical questions, posed from the side of activity, if I'm not linked to you throguh the common of the work, what is then the connection? How are we disclovering and communicating togehter the gift of the common? Or differently – how to talk about activity then, when we are together in a void and nobody is standing behind us, but nevertheless we know more then ever that the question about what is to be done, even if it is a much contaminated reference, is still a very important question to be asked? What is then our activity and how can we describe our collaboration, our suspens, the moment of interruption? This is a particulary vivid question for performing arts not only because we wish that the critical production of the collaboration would be in its core, but also because performing arts are through the history full of contaminated references of the common (contaminated reference in the sense that the reference can be used but at the same time it is always ambivalent, it should be always approached criticaly and with the awarennes of our own ways of using it): theatre was always thorough the history linked with a certain representation of the common, being intitutionalized in its burgeois audience or later in the more open version of participation and equality among stage and audience. This production of the common which is always in the core of theatrical representation is the reason for many myths about theatre as the space of a certain mythical experience and communication, confirmation of equality (which always happened inside a certain class – borgueois by example), as the space of equal participation and possibility of everybody can do it (in the theatrical experiments of the sixthies by example). Today, when performance is tightly linked with the contemporary processes of globalisation which can be also understood as the complex multilayered and multiple flow of constant collaboration, negotiation and communication, of the sybolic capital we can say, where the difference between simulation and real is not important anymore, one of the main references of the common is interculturality: this possibility of performing arts to open op to the other, to translation and transformation. Performance on the global cultural market is tightly linked with the production of the common contemporaneity and deeply interwined into the thinking of the processes of translation. We are all traveling, collaborating, participating, we are togehter producting constant flows of collaborations and many encounters which are becoming our own symbolic capital. This certainly open up the performing arts field for the visibility of the other, it opens up many different possibilities to work together and to talk about work and the question as in our example video "what is to be done". But at the same time we have to ask ourselves how this flow of collaboration is not already pressuposing multicultural understanding, translation and participation as some pressuposed common being, something which is defining our ways of being together in advance and not allowing the encounter to fail, to suspense itself, to fragmentarise, to disolve, to transform, to evaporate. Or differently: we cannot encounter ourselves in the void, because the world is already settled under our feets, the roads are already open, the maps are written, the buildings are already named. In the time of fetishized collaboration we have many difficulties to be given or abandoned to the communicty in the Nancy's sense - since we hardly can collaborate and alternatively spatialize our own collaboration, we can hardly locate the space of encounter in the world which is bursting with network of different encounters. The paradox is that these encounters are more and more mapped and framed, the roads seems to be open but at the same time the channels to cross them are more and more specified and controlled, you have to belong to the certain community of work to cross them (being a dancer, philosopher or dentist – as my gentle brazilian dentist from yesterday who would like to go to spain for more money). Therefore i think we cannot talk about collaboration not thinking also about the space – and this maybe seems as a little paradox, because I said that collaboration is happening in a void.

Let's help ourselves with the video What is to be done again and then go to same other examples how to link the collaboration and space, or active spatialization which is much better notion for my use. In the video What is to be done young people are framed in the series of still shots, and what is interesting here is that they are always in a different spatial positions here, their bodies are always posed in a different order (probably defined by the contingency of their talking together). We are all the time seeing only the series of still frames, with the subtitles of the talk among the people in the shots. The frames are following one after another, and on each frame the positions of the people talking are changed. This constant repositioning of the group which takes place in the anonymus night (in the dark void), these bodies changing in relaxed and at the same time engaged positions, this talking of the people to take positions (in both senses of the word: to take position in a talk and to take position in the space – which is also tightly linked with the understanding of performative – to talk and act) can be a good comparaison how can we link the collaboration and the question of the space, through which we could unweal how are we opened and abandoned to the common. The people are together, they encounter each other because at the same time they are disclosing the ways how the space is construced, they are opening up the space through the positioning of their subjcetivites, they are in a void night, but at the same time this space is constructed through their ways of talking together, defined with their desires, activites and their positioning in the space. This void becomes a political space par excellence, nevermind if this is only an anyonimous space of the night, because it is the space of constant positioning, changing through negotiation, disagreement and disput, inhabiting through encountering, a true public space, indeed. (in opposition with the Popokov's picture where politics is already pressuposed and the place is only its mimesis, representation) I don't know if you are familiar with the writing of Henri Lefebvre about the space (The Production of the Space), but it can be very helpful, especially if your work will be, as I understood, connected to a site-specificity. Lefebvre writes about the active spatialization, which is replacing a static notion of the understanding of the space. The meaning of the named space is never its designated activity or phsical properties but their interaction with far less obvious subjectivites and with the actions and signyfying practices that elicit (mask) these. (Rogoff, 23) So space cannot be understood thorugh named activity for which is intended (a tennis court in which a game of tennis is played, an important place which importancy is nowadays most commonly named through the framed wiev of the tourist) or through the titles thats its buildings or other solid entities might uphold. The space is all the time produced thorguh the active processes of spatialization which are connection between designated activites, physical properties and structures of subjectivites with their social relations, anxieties, desires etc. How the structure of subjectivity is spatial can be shown with an example from the history of the places for negotiation, collaboration and communication. Famous example from Levebre is "antechambre", antechamber, the space of negotiation between king and royal petitioners. This constant space of negotiation, where petitioners become more empowered because they were meeting the king in person, and the absolute monarh has to diminshed in power, as his space has been infiltrated with commoners is not only showing us how the space is socially defined, but also something else. This space of negotiation has to be strictily physically codified, it almost never changed and it is the most monumental of spaces today – like parliaments, corporation builidngs, institutions (theaters are slowly disappearing from this map): it has to be architectonically full of signs that the flow of subjectivites can collaborate, otherways the space is always endangered with politics, with the constant flew of opinions, disputs, masked and non-visible subjectivites etc. Why is this so important when talking about the collaboration? Because when we understand collaboration as a kind of spatial activity too then collaboration became a matter of positioning, of taking the place thorguh encounter. In this collaboration we are not taking the place for the other (which is strictily allowed and codified in the institutional places of collaboration) but with the other in a void, we demand the space, we inhabit it, we are all the time in the proces – as would Irit Rogoff said – multi-inhabitation of spaces throguh bodies, social relations and pshycic dynamics. Only then the night of "What is to be done" group can become a political night, because it is a night fully inhabited but at the same time open to the void, opening up multiple possiblities for acting and encountering each other, but at the same time still standing in a dark, the space is full of meaning but not transparent and enligtened. (This of course is in a strict contraditiction with the nation states by example, which are instisting on a singular spatial multi-inhabitation under one dominant rule with the (and it is no wonder that then the pragmatic result of a spatial multi-inhabitation within a context of a nation state is an armed conflict). The darkness which accompaying the collaboration is of outmost importance here: the common is namely never visible because the space is also not illuminated, but it is only appearing as a contingent appendix of the positioned relation. Lefebre warns us excatly on this illusion of transparency – where space appears as luminous, intelligible, as giving action free rein, it is a view of space as innocent and free of traps. The institutional space for negotiation is a prime expample of the illusion of transparency – the most immanent and present powerfull examples today are of course corporation builidings, which are with their glass and fragility pure examples of transparent freedom of corporate activity, action, collaboration and communication, innocent and abstract, designed as possibility for freedom.

When we are then thinking about the relation between collaboration and active spatialization, we are thinking about different ways of inhabiting the spaces – which are not illuminating the space, but inhabitinng and spatializing it up in the darkness, in the ambivalency, in its multiplicity, so that the multiplicity of its subjectivies can also be visible and put into action. The collaboration is here understood as an active spatialization because it opens up the space for the unlimited positibiltes, for the alternative positions which are parralel, multilayerd and simultaneous, too. In such collaboration we are not encountering each other as an invidual subjectivites, where one is a one and another is the other, and one can be for the another, and the another can be for the other – in this encounter there is still to much to cross, to pass, to get over: intercutlurality we can say still implys to much of culture to be crossed, as interdisciplinarity still implies to many disciplines to be crossed. We are living in the world where we are crossing each other all the time, but what is this contingent urgency which nevertheless holds us together? If it is not the finality, history, religion, the end of man, if it is not a loss (loss of community, history, country), if it is not the belonging since the belonging to full of ambivalences, if it is not the common of the work, what is it then that holds us together? Irit Rogoff is in one interwiev talking about this problem when thinking about what holds the young people together revolting the negative processes of globalisation, figthing against the appropriation of movement, possibility, of language from the capital? There is one image from Oliver Ressler, an austrian artistis and activits, which I unfortunately do not have with me, but which is disclosing us some contingent links which are holding this people together. He made a series of photographies of the different cities after the "wrongly called" antiglobalised protests – there were only streets on the photos, windows of the well-known global shops all protected with the simple wooden desks, which became the best plato for the unending line of grafitti against the corporative greed and neoliberal economy. What holds them together is this contingent urgency, this incoherent image of a different space, an alternative and parallel narative, an alternative territory with a alternative flow of signs, we can say, another visualised geography, spatialized action. This is not anymore about crossing and get to know, but about opening the possibilities together, constructing the fragmented and incoherent language, a different mapping of the city and its commercial quartiers, if you would like to talk with the language of the mapping, ephemeral urgency of something which we cannot share, but neverhteless we are there together. What holds us together is positionality, but positionality cannot be without the space, so there is always positionality connected with another reading of the space, with another mapping of the territory where we can rearange the void and not participate only in the already given illuminated space for acting and negotiating.

Maybe it would be good to talk about some concrete examples now, but you will see all this examples are staying open, this is only a try to tell a different narativity, it is not a judgement. It is more articulation as a participation, as a beliveing of their criticality and possibility to open up different territories. I would say today artistic actitivity is somehow becoming the field of the articulation of possibility, but it would stay like that only of this possibility would be a complicit possibility, would be resposnible for the possible which is open throgh it – would always be implemented and deeply interwiend when being critical, demanding a space and territory for its articulation and opening different possibilites of spatiality. This is not possibility appropriated by the capital and media in the sense that our subjectivity is always feeded with the fullfilment of our desire as well as with redemption (that we will get in the future what we were lost in the past), but a complicit possibility in a sense that univisible subjectivites are becoming visible, spaces are opening up to the dynamic, maps are written differently and with different language, bodies are disclosed as a complex articulation of relations and positionality, materials are reused and re-read. In this way we are not only doing the work of parralel translation and meeting the other, where translation is always needed, but a work of transformation which has its consequences, never mind if there are minor (if as in the work of the group What is to be done nobody stands behind them, neverheless it is important to ask this questions). This is a way of inhabiting the space with collaboration – to open up the risk to be implemented and complicit, not only to negotiate and change the social positions as in the king's antechamber, but also to inhabit and risk with the position, the ways how we are developing knowledge and also to risk with the encounter – we never know, maybe we would be abandoned. Brian Holmes said in one text about collaboration and community that “What we do not choose is what we can most easily share, or what we can’t avoid sharing” (Brian Holmes, Collective creativity, 87).

I will just briefly mentioned several complicit projects, which are dealing with inhabitation and possibility and are spatialy active but not in the proposed space, but in a space with a void. One is a last project from the slovenian visual art collective Irwin, which is a group of five visual artists working together already from the eighties, well-known and important group in the contemporary art. Their last project East ART Map is subtitled: history is not given, please help us to construct it. The project is basically several years long research of the eastern europian modernism which is hardly existing on the visible map of western modernism, only represented thorguh a certain frames of expositions etc... They are collaborating with artists, curators, theoreticians to research the connections, realtions, ways of collaboration, contingencies, devotions, admirations, references of the territory of artists, which were inivisible, known only fragmentary, only as invidiuals (mostly heroic individuals), never represented as a spatial territory, as a scene (as we like to say). After two years of research a complex map began to emerge revealing rich and unvisible history of collaboration, done practicaly in the void. The most interesting part is not only the research, but also a visualisation of the map, different mapping which is with its visual imaginary fully complicit, it is taking the autoritative and risky role to talk about the history, to put it together, to collectively construct it, to make mistakes also, to fail, it is fully complicit in what it is doing, since it is developing another language, another visual imagery of this non-visible territory. It is filling up the void, we can say, but with a strict and risky inhabiting – it is not mapping territories, contracts, negotiations, but subjectivites, artistic flows, but it is at the same time risky and complicit when constructing another transparency. But this is also un-mapping, re-mapping the way how knowledge about western art was organised – therefore the risk is welcomed and needed, the inhabitation is all the time implemented in the space which is becoming visible thorugh inhabiting.
When thinking about this project I would like also other maps to emerge, other visualisations which are visualisations of different encounters (produced or not, it doesn't matter if there is this awarennes of complicity), like the complex and very fragile maping of contemporary dance in slovenia and contemporary dance in portugal, two histories of the ninethies which were practical having no production contacts, but many important encounters (non visible then on the map), many very important encounters for the people working on the field of dance. There is some similarity in analsysis of the situation, some dramaturgical sinhronicity which is connected with corissing the borders and coming to the western dance markets, some connection in the ways how these two scenes were emerging and spatializing themselves. This I'm opening here only as a possibility to think – because it is still to much in the air to make some conclusions.
When encountering, i think we are always encountering also spatialy even if we come together in a void. It doesn't so much matter who opens up the possibility for us, if we are aware that excatly this opening up the possibility presents the way of how the flows of money, capital and people is going on today, and it doesn't matter if this is happening in the art or in the economy, this is the gear which is pushig the world today. But at the same time, this possibility when it is not complicit, when it is not connected to the inhabitation, remains abstract as a corporative manual about collaboration. "It is namely the question that we asked that produced the field of enquiery, and not some body of material which determines what questions need to be posed to it." (Gayatri Spivak)

We are together not because we are encountering each other as individual subjectivites but because with our opening up the possibilities to each other we are also opening certain flow of incoherence, alternatives for oursleves, we are together in a kind of ephemeral urgency, contingent urgency.

because it is opening up the space for unlimited possiblities, and this unlimitation i mean here for real

Od tu moram razložit preselitev, kaj je tu tranzicijskega in tranzicijskega:

*** kako se oblikuje teritorij: to ni samo fizični pojem – mentalne geografije, mentalni prostori, kako subjekti vizualizirajo, konceptualizirajo njihovo identiteto .. »kulturna teritorialnost« (irit rogoff): derrida meje nakazujejo meje možnosti: z mejami se omeji možnost!! Z interdisciplinarnostjo je še vedno močna meja disciplinarnosti, ki jo prehajamo! Zakaj institucionalne prakse vedno postavljajo meje moznosti? (vprašanje od irit rogoff): kaj je tako nevarnega v imeti neomejene možnosti, da vedno zahteva konstantno urejanje ki je vrsta teritorialnosti?
Pozicionalnot – ni samo lokacija ampak je tudi attiutude – odnos do stvari. Zakaj je to zdaj pomembno, ne kontekst, ne zamejitev, pač pa vedno artikuliranje nujnosti, neposrednosti...kaj naj drži skupaj je kontingentnost, efemeralnost nujnosti, kotingentna nujnost. Kakšne so alternativne prakse za nas same?
Kar je pomembno so principi inkorehence, po katerih lahko deluje skupnost, ne pa samo individualne subjektivnosti…

“What we do not choose is what we can most easily share, or what we can’t avoid sharing” (Brian Holmes, Collective creativity, 87)

Posted by bojana cvejic at August 18, 2005 02:53 PM

2.5.07

suggestion from florent...

Dear all,

I've just got a mail from Florent suggesting that we could set up some questions as follow so we could think how to make this blog a real tool for us...
each one could answer the following questions for instance... or maybe you have other in mind...

It could be a good starting point...

Here it goes:

WHAT IS THE AIM OF THIS BLOG FOR YOU?

HOW COULD WE USE THIS BLOG FOR OUR COLLECTIVE WORK ?

HOW COULD THIS BLOG BE USED FOR YOUR PERSONAL WORK?

WHAT KIND OF SECTIONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE HERE? ( Personal texts - Quotation text - Idea for improving the project etc... - Glimpse on other artists etc....)


I decided also to post here some excerpts of your motivations letters when you applied to participate in this project... maybe it could be also good help on finding ways to reply to this questions Florent suggests and also for you to know the motivations of the other participants, when they decided to apply to this project.


"I am very interested in exchanging knowledge and practice with the artists that live and/or work in cultural and political contexts that are not central European contexts. I am particularly interested in the exchange of reflexion on the artistic practice and the context around that practice and how this influences the working process and product itself. Reciprocally, how the artistic practice and the context of its production influences the cultural and political context it is based in. Your initiative sounds like a place where this is happening on a very intensive level. I am a dancer and choreographer but have worked increasingly interdisciplinary. I move between dance and performance and have explored the issue of sensing and understanding live and digital presence for several years now. I explored it through the relationship between intimacy and distance in the space re-configured by technology in three projects in the past two years. Through those projects, I have also developed a language of movement that is a fusion of dance, sound, image and (in some of them) text. In the next phase of my artistic research, I would like to expand the possibilitiesof working with the body. I want to further develop the strategies I so far used to create a space for the performers, to place them in the movement of the body itself. I think your exchange platform can provide me with a very good ground for this, in dialogue with all the other international participants." (Andrea Bozic)


"My artistic experiences are aroused by a deep interest in anthropology, philosophy, visual art and performance stressing out the interplay among the various expressive forms. But I’m not used to consider myself neither a visual artist, a dancer, an actor, nor a specific performer. I am a person that tries to put himself in different states and dimensions leading to the art work; I’m open to different kinds of experiences and possibilities. I’ve always been interested in finding new process of work and, expecially now, I believe in the collaboration with persons that are not strictly related to my artistic languages. I’m interested in discovering new bodily concepts, trying to give different, personal looks and condiderations to life. I’m convinced that “we’re not our body”, in the sense that the body is just an organic-object, a medium of my desires, which expresses an identity. We are constantly changing and our identity too, to the point where it becomes necessary to consider the alterity of it. I’m interested in the “diversity”, in what it means to be “out of society”, an outsider, where I don’t conceive art only as pacifier, nor space and form consolatory. On my opinion, an artist should display the taboos of his epoch, what the society repress because different from the concept of “normal”. I believe the role of the artist always witness the research to overtake the limits, limits of genus, sex, culture, story, bodily, emotional limits. I’m also interested in analyzing the borders between craziness and normality, in what - and if - separates art from life. One of my deepest concern is to find the channels that meet the diversity in all of its colours, to explore the existance, its fragility. All these principles are included in the concept of what I consider art, in the creative process, even when the body is “dancing”, still or moving, leading to a deeper and autentic necessity, to be due from a inner “intellingences” of the body". (Andrea Fagarazzi)


"As a french artist I tend most of the time to take a look abroad in several countries. It is a necessity, because dance territory is so small it is spread is several little spots all around the world. But it is also the matter of my work itself, even even though I'm not using it as a theme, for meeting other artists (experienced or not) is the motor of the creation which is modified unwillingly.So I don't consider myself as a french artist, and neither as a dance artist, because the territory is broader than that.Meeting people that came from a different background is always fruitfull because it allows you to get rid of what is too obvious, and became meaningless. But it also strengthens what is reacting in an unexpected way in a different context I hope that this ecounter would allow me to share my personal projects, I am working on and confront them to new eyes, and also would be the starting point of an unexpected collaboration, that could generate an future artistic project". (Florent Delval)


"Depuis mon retour de la formation exerce au CCN de Montpellier en 2002 j’ai eu rarement l’occasion de partager des temps forts avec des chorégraphes et danseurs du « Nord ». Les quelques stages, ou master class auxquels j’ai eu la possibilité de participer m’ont toujours laissé sur ma faim par leur durée trop courte alors que je me rendais justement compte à quel point j’avais encore besoin de vivre des expériences nouvelles, découvrir des techniques différentes, de me confronter aux critiques, à la réflexion et l’analyse d’autres personnes.
Au Maroc je me sens isolée du monde de la danse bien que je danse tous les jours. Les nombreux voyages en Afrique ne comblent malheureusement pas l’écart que je ressens par rapport à la création et la créativité qui existe en Europe. Mon impression de stagnation et de saturation grandit de plus en plus malgré l’évolution que nous commençons à constater dans notre continent.J’ai besoin de nourrir mes connaissances, de m’améliorer, de me construire plus solidement pour pouvoir à mon tour contribuer efficacement au développement de la danse en Afrique". (Hind Benali)


"I'm interested on the idea of encounter. To participate in your project means the possibility to develop from the cultural perspective the creation in dance." Idoia Zabaleta


"Living and working in Palestine, where dance is a hobby, a talent or just a side volunteer-based activity, I believe that it is crucial to further develop Palestinian dance in a professional setting. I view dance not as art for the sake of art but as a valuable, even indispensable, means of communication that carries a message. Social activism, resisting oppression, supporting progressive change are all domains where Palestinian dance has been nourished. It is also my own way of reflecting on my thoughts, ideas and identity. I have been dancing with El-Funoun, Palestine’s leading dance company, for nineteen years, and I’ve been a choreographer as well for the past six years.I wish to explore the complex relationship between roots and contemporariness in an atmosphere that can offer me an opportunity to learn, to share, to experiment and to build my skills in dance.I plan through my work not only as an artist but also as an assistant director of El-Funoun that I would work on building a network between Palestinians and international dancers, dance companies and centers for future exchange of ideas and programs. I believe that your program will provide a very positive environment in which I may creatively examine ways to approach my choreographic goals and work on the development of dance." Noora Baker


"As for my motivation letter I don't usually have much to say and certainly not due to lack of reason or motive but rather due to the obvious need for such encounters for artists in general and female artists from North Africa/Middle East/Mediterranean.It is quite essential that one would be able to go out every now and then to either give visibility to the work that does not find much space within as well as share experiences and meet other artists thatare working in the region and outside as well.It is the only way to insure continuity,artistic development as well as adding to experiences that are later shared with locals which is another role one wants and needs to play in a place like Cairo,Egypt and for an art form such as Contemporary Dance that is still in its growing phase and needs to be well presented and as much as possible avoid mis-representation that can play a damaging role for something that is still growing and has a huge potential." (Karima Mansour)


"This is a great opportunity to be able to work with dancers from different places of the Mediteranean Region. In my dance career I’m in a place in which I dance improvisation as performing mode and as well use improvisation as a compositional tool. I feel this state of mind is leading me to a fertile and productive ground. With my participation in this meeting I will be refreshing my knowledge on creating work through working with other dancers and choreographers as well as having a great opportunity for trying out ideas in an available atmosphere which will already surve for artistic and cultural exchange." (Talin B.)


Looking forward for your replies...

Rui

from masu


Hello everyone! Nice to see the bog is growing up. I send you two texts of the works I’m developing at the moment; I feel that in these two works there is a connection with my experience in our encounter: the body as an object and subject of representation at same time.

Like a Image is a physical poem, a reflection on the subdued body. It puts into practice the idea of generating a dynamic scene; an image made of multiple layers. It makes also a reflection on the most frightening chapters of power abuse in our history. The idea of a body becomes a cultural memory.

Espacio Triple Sonoro was born as a sound installation. When conveying this sound register experience to the body, I delimit my task to the search of the other from my own fiscality.I work with the notion of hollows and being able to access them in order to renew myself. Sometimes, I only have to forget about what I am doing to discover myself sink in surprised or incongruity. On other occasions, I accept recognizing myself, so I draw a fictitious route which makes me feel me more real.

PD. Talin, I’m very happy our conflict was an inspiration for you work, it was also for me!

I will write again very soon!

Kisses

Masu

"petites" news from hind

Bonjour tous le monde

je suis désolée de ne pas avoir donné signe de vie, je n'etais pas à Casablanca mais dans une toute petite ville au Maroc, sans connexion...

dans cette ville c'etait la premiere fois que de la danse, autre que la folklorique, était proposée. Bien sur je n'ai pas donné de spectacle, c'est encore trop tot, mais j'ai commencé à preparer le terrain pour cela, en mettant en place des ateliers reguliers durant toute l'année avec des enfants d'une associations et des dames. Cette premiere etape etait un succès, la prochaine aura lieu fin mai.

Aujourd'hui je reprends les repétitions de mon solo VOI afin de le presenter le 17 mai à l'institut français de Casablanca. Ce solo, plutot récent, n'a jamais été dansé au Maroc, donc pour moi c'est une date très importante; ma famille, mes amis, mes élèves, des journalistes, mes concurrents (-: , les quelques bailleurs de fonds...humm. comme on dit ça passe ou ça casse !!

je vous envoie le synopsis du spectacle si vous voulez jetter un coup d'oeil

bise à vous tous

hind


"VOI"


J’entends la douce musique perlée, le chant berçant « gharnati », les prières murmurées constamment, les conseils, les références au passé, aux traditions.
J’entends les voi féminines hésitantes et inquiètes, l’assurance de la voi masculine.
Tout m’indique la voi à suivre.
Je suis parmi la foule. Je sens les regards. Ils me voi. Je tente de leur échapper dans un recoin où l’on se cache, on épie, on « bergueg ».
Je sors. J’accepte le handicap de mes chaussures à talon et de ma chevelure envahissante.
Me voi ci.


Partenaires : Culturesfrance – Afrique en création,Ambassade de France au Maroc SCAC,
Instituts français de Marrakech et Casablanca - Maroc, Centre Culturel français de Zinder- Niger, Ness El fen - Tunisie, Art Moves Africa, Wilaya du Grand Casablanca, Royal Air Maroc

Les photos sont utilisées avec l’aimable autorisation du CCF Zinder