"Mobile" vs. "Stabile"

Returning from the Calder exhibit at the Whitney (where i was so graciously taken by Darla's art-loving parents) I find myself very excited about a new term I learned at the exhibit - a "stabile".

Alexander Calder, now famous for his ceiling-attached slightly-moving abstract modern art, had a great deal of works that were both stationary (as in not moving at all, ever) and semi-stationary (for example, a wire sculpture that doesn't re-arrange in relation to itself, but does move via the vibrations and indirect movements of those walking by and looking at it). I was reading on one of the walls that Jean Arp coined a term for this type of Calder's work - "Stabiles".

Defined as "an abstract construction that is completely stationary" the text at the exhibit noted that the point of deeming these works "stabiles" was to relate them to their moving counterparts, mobiles. In doing so, Calder was showing that these stationary works were mobiles too - only with these, the movement, shifting perspective, and kinetic nature of the art came from the viewer's movement, not the sculpture's.

Neat, right? I think it's a lovely concept, and one that's immediately relatable (at least for me...) to dance and dance film. While i think the most logical connection is to look at pieces where the audience is asked to move and change perspectives, there's not really my cup of tea and, having never made one, it would be a brief and unthurough analysis. However, i think that looking at dancefilm through the structure of "mobile" vs. "stabile" can be quite illuminating.

Here's how it makes sense to me:
If we're looking at it analytically from a kinesthetic point of view, it seems we have four options.

1.) camera stationary, dancers stationary
2.) camera moving, dancers stationary
3.) camera stationary, dancers moving and
4.) camera moving, dancers moving.

While there are certainly a million shades of gray (what happens when you have multiple dancers, some moving some not? are we defining movement spatially? viscerally? etc) almost all situations are at least comprised, at a base level, of these four options. In that case, since the camera takes the role of the viewers perspective, we could also look at it with this parallel:

1.) camera stationary, dancers stationary - "Super-stabile" (or whatever.)
2.) camera moving, dancers stationary - "Stabile"
3.) camera stationary, dancers moving - "Mobile"
4.) camera moving, dancers moving. - "Ultra-mobile"

While, at first glance, this might look like a spectrum from least to most movement, I don't think it is. As i've often argued, the way to kill a dance is to film it from a stationary tripod. Which is not to say that you can't create a stationary shot that really conveys a sense of movement, it's just to point out that sometimes a moving shot can convey movement in a more visceral way (take, if you will, the camera movement for kiss in the elevator in Bazz Luhrman's "Romeo + Juliet" - tiny clip w/i the preview - versus the (okay, semi-)stationary footage of Beyonce's "Single Ladies").





Though you could spend time arguing that one conveys movement better than the other, i'd be satiated just agreeing that they convey it differently - one wants you to see the dancing for all it's aesthetic and visceral glory, and one wants you to experience that glory viscerally as the camera moves for you.

This has been on my mind of late, because we're getting closer and closer to being able to film Julia's solo for the new piece ("Glass Tree in Harlem"). The basic question has been (as it is whenever i make a dance film): what is the best way to film this as to make an art of it in it's own right? I don't want to make an artifact of the performative version - i want to make a dancefilm - and so an intersecting and re-working of the performative version's aesthetic into an aesthetic that combines the technique of both dance and film is necessary. So how to do it? Is it better to show the movement from full front? Better to have the camera move around Julia since much of the piece is still or small movement? Better to have both Julia and the camera moving? Or is that too much, to shaky to be viewed seated?

I've begun to assemble a sort of mish mosh of shots, some still others moving. I think my vision for it (at this point, we're still pretty young) is to have most of the phrases (the piece is composed of 30+ four-second phrases and two longer phrases) shot still from the front, at various different perspectives (for example, one mid range full body shot, one close in resting on the floor, etc). THEN, for the two longer phrases, i'm working out the mechanics of a shot that combines choreographed camera and dancer movement. If we can pull it off like it is in my mind (maybe 76% chance?) it will be GORGEOUS, and i'm pretty excited for it.

Since we'll also be utilizing slow and fast motion as well as reversing in the editing of it, I'm hoping to do a test of this shot sometime soon so i can start playing with it on final cut and seeing if it's possible. I'll post whatever I make!

Fundraiser Recap

So, as you know, having been hit over the head repeatedly with many invitations for the past few weeks, the A.O. Movement Collective had their first houseparty/fundraiser last weekend, and the lovely residence of Julia PT.

I thought it would be helpful (for myself to recap, and for anyone else who's interested in the business details) to examine how it went in a fundraising light, outline a bit of our strategy, and project a little about what this means for our future.
___

Goals.
The main goals of the party were as follows (from order of most to least important):

1.) Have a great and enjoyable party, so that guest leave feeling like "that was really fun, i want to come to the next event that the AOMC throws"
2.) Announce our arrival in NY (both at the party and via emails and invites to the party) so that our name starts to get out there. At the party, talk a little bit about the projects that we're working on and show some old work
3.) Raise money

Action.
To achieve these goals, we did focused on a few main aspects:
1.) "Party" - we wanted to make sure everyone had an amazing time, so we focused on food, drinks, and music. Master baker Larissa Sheldon brought a wealth of amazing treats, and the rest of the company was equally apt at creating a feast of finger food, cheese, and dips, each donating what they could. We spent about $60 on wine (mainly 2 buck chuck from Trader Joe's) and a few people brought beer. Once at the party, a run was made at some point to a liquor store for a bottle of vodka. A few people brought ipods and shared DJing duties through the night, providing what are commonly known as "phat beats".

2.) "AOMC News" - the party started officially at 8, with guest starting to trickle in around 8:30. At 10, Julia gave a welcome toast, letting people know about the dancefilms that we had streaming on two laptops, welcoming them to the party, and telling them to eat drink and be merry. Around midnight, I gave a more formal "speech", describing the work that we've been doing with our 100 hours of free studio time and asking for donations.

3.) "Fundraising" - aside from our plea for donations, we set up a few "stations" to encourage cash flow. The first was a small table as guests entered, which held donation forms for anyone who wanted to write a check, business cards, and a vase which we pre-set with some 1 and 5dollar bills. The second station, set up at the kitchen table, held a silent auction. We initially hadn't planned to do anything big, but a generous donation from a dancer's family specifically intended for the auction allowed us to make a bunch of different gift baskets (a "romance" basket with chocolate and champagne, a "pasta" basket with nice sauce and pastas, a "spa" basket with lots of body lotions and...stuff, a "wine and cheese party" with small cheeses, crackers, and a bottle of wine, and an "xmas" basket with cookie cutters, decorating things, sugar cookie mix, and the N'SYNC xmas album). We also had member donated items such as 4 hrs of admin work, pillates classes, a museum outing, and a kit hat and scarf set.

Outcome.

1.) All in all, i think the party was a success. I think everyone had a fun time, enjoyed the chance to pary together, liked the food and free alcohol, and met some new people. As an artist, I found it nice to get to meet other dancers (friends of a company member). I don't think anyone showed up who wasn't a friend of someone, but at the same time, there were at least ten people there who hadn't heard of the AOMC before or come to one of our events.

2.) I think the two speeches went well, although in the future i think it might be wise to do the second speech a little earlier, and separate from the reading out of the silent auction. I'm always very self-conscious and unsatisfied with the speeches i give (somewhere in my heart of hearts, i always desire a speech that would melt the heart of every man, woman, and child, emptying their pockets and inspiring a new generation...so i'm always a little disappointed when it's met with polite applause, even when it goes well) but i thought that it got the point across and was simple and short, which is always a victory for me.

3.) We didn't make any money off of the event, but we didn't loose a whole lot either, which considering that our main goal was just to throw a great party and not worry as much about the money, made sense. We were able to raise about $150 off of the auction and the donation vase combined, and then received one $50 check donation from someone who couldn't attend later that week. Definitely not bad for our first party, although a cloudy warning sign to take heed of for events to come.

Analysis + Next Step.

So. Why didn't the event make money?
First, as aforementioned, it wasn't the main goal. Would we have made money if it was the main goal? Debatable. For one thing, most of the guest in attendance did donate, either via the silent auction or the donation jar. However, most guests who bid on the silent auction did not also make a donation. Somewhat expected, although good to know when keeping in mind that our biggest net gain comes from the donations because there's zero spending on our part (or, a percentage of $60 when you consider the wine and food). It seemed that everyone was willing to donate about $5 for the drinks, but after that point, goods such as those offered in the auction were needed to increase spending. I guess the question that it comes down to for me is: did the auction actually help us at all? Not so much in terms of re-hashing this event, but for looking to the future, considering that we're planning to do this on a bi-monthly basis. Should we do it again? Every time? Just at the larger events? Money-wise, it didn't really make us any money, considering that the donation we got to make the baskets ($150) wasn't even met via their auction. However, it did encourage donations (one guest admitted that she hadn't meant to spend the +$50 that she spend bidding), and I like being able to "give back" something and have people feel like they're getting a great deal. Ideally, if people come to know these events as places to get a great deal, they would come already intending to spend money on bidding, and then hopefully bid more than they had originally intended in bidding wars, causing the overall donations to increase each event. However, most of the guests in attendance were under the "poor young artist" category, meaning that there probably a limit (one not to far above what we hit) of what people are willing to spend. Which brings me to the second point:

Who was there?
As i said, poor young artists. All friends of company members. Many still in college (as over half of the dancers are still full-time students). Most under 25. Transportation and distance seemed to be a big issue, as it was hard for us to lure people outside of Manhattan, although there was a large contingency from Manhattanville. Mostly female, almost all artists.

Concerns and Questions this raises for the future -

1.) How do we get more people to attend that we know and are already connected to the company, but that feel like they "don't have time" "are too far away" or are dubious about if it's worth spending one of their weekend nights at an art event? Is it worthwhile to be courting this crowd, or should we focus on gaining a new, closer audience?

2.) How do we get people to come that are new to the AOMC? Aside from friends of friends (which seemed to be a great way of getting new faces to come, in the future i think it would make sense to ask each dancer to concentrate on getting three new friends to come, or something along those lines) how do we attract a new audience?

3.) While the event was a great party, part of my eventual goal in having these events be bi-monthly would be to have them become networking and idea-exchanging events - still a fun party, but also a (i hesitate to say it but) semi-serious place for artistic dialogue. Is it possible to combine these things without it feeling too forced? Would they be better as separate events?

4.) In the future, we also hope to host these events as a platform for other companies to fundriase - for example, the AOMC would still host it, but maybe two other companies would also be bringing guests etc. and have the chance to get to talk about what they're doing. In a structure such as that, what are innovative ways to increase donation, so that guests feel motivated to donate to the AOMC and these other companies. Is it necessary for the AOMC to take some kind of cover charge or percentage? Or is there a way to all work together to create a frenzy of giving?

5.) Location. Julia's apartment was great for this type of event, but it would also eventually be great to have a location where we could show work. Where would be a good location to keep the casual party vibe, be able to show, and also be conducive to community building and fundraising?

6.) What did we miss out on? Are there things we should do next time to fundraise differently? Someone at this event mentioned a kissing booth, charging a cover charge, or selling merchandise. Anything else? What's most profitable?

7.) Does making this event a "house party" casual format discourage older and perhaps larger donors from attending? Does it discourage larger donations from those that do attend? Would making it more formal or in a different format lead to better fundraising? Is it necessary to separate our supporters into two groups (young artist partyiers and older formal donors) or is there a format that would allow everyone to mingle and have a great time together?


So that's the long short-story of it. Of course I have more questions and more vacillating on decisions to come such as the silent auctions and attendees, but these seemed like the main points. Would love to hear any feedback or ideas, as always. And, if you missed this one, hope to see you at the next one!

Update on New Work

So in between the videos i thought it might be helpful (for me and for you) to verbalize some of what I'm working on for this new piece. I'm going with a tentative working title (...maybe...) of "over again". Although "Remote control" and "Clutch Clutch"would also be options.

We've had two group rehearsals (although, in true form we've yet to have a rehearsal with the whole cast at the same time...) and I've had five or six studio times to work on material. Needless to say, it's just starting out, and nowhere near gelling into some cohesive gloop yet.

But there are certain truths that have revealed themselves to me so far, as well as specific questions that i'm starting to investigate. I kind of see all the ideas and questions i have right now as fitting on a series of continuums or spectra. One of theses spectra starts as pure art-for-the-sake-of-art creative investigative questions and ends at pure dollar sign economic questions about the business of running my company and producing this piece. Within that spectrum lies a more specific dance-making spectrum of questions and ideas, ranging from the purely visceral to the purely subvisceral (having to do with the information and ideas related to the movement, but outside of the body). The third continuum is altogether separate, and slides between the pure-movement end and the tech/video/programing end.
Which is all just to say: I have many questions and ideas right now. This is how they look in my head so I don't go crazy.

One of the biggest revelations that i've had while working on the piece is a deeper understanding of where this specific movement vocabulary (or at least, one of them - what i'm referring to as "lush") is coming from. Larissa (who i first worked with in "the What's Left Over After") sent me some great questions (as she always does) after our first rehearsal, one of them being a basic "why me for this piece/role". As i've been working more and more during my studio times, I've realized that much of this movement comes from a melding of mine and Larissa's impulses. While it's not the first time that i've been in a great relationship of making dances "for" a dancer - specifically with them in mind - I think it's less common than I would like to believe. I always make movement with my dancers in mind - trying to fit their bodies and keep them engaged and interested, i think it takes some working with each individual to really understand how they move enough to be making for their body through your body when you're alone in the studio. Maybe the best way to describe it is the difference between being really good at knowing what someone would say and actually being so inside their head that you both say the same thing at the same time, but don't find it at all out of the ordinary. So that's exciting. And from here i'm looking forward to the point which we break apart again, and both surprise each other with what we do.

Since i mentioned the "spectrum thinking" that i've been using lately (...this morning...) I'll talk about the other side of realizing i'm really in tune with Larissa's moving - I'm stuck on Ollie and Nick. Being the two "newest" to work with in that i've never made work for them (as I have for Cavin, Lillie, Larissa, and Laurel) and never danced for or with them in a piece (as I have Christina and Julia), i'm a little out of touch with who they are, and uncomfortably so. I'm having my first small group rehearsal tomorrow and focusing on the Cavin/Nick Larissa/Oliver duets, so hopefully that will give me some time to get into their bodies a little more, but I'm also wondering how much of my ignorance in terms of what to make for them is their maleness. In addition to Nick and Ollie, I've also found two more male dancers who are interested in being a part of the piece (who i'll be meeting with and deciding on within the next week or so...) who i'll know even less - i've at least known Nick and Ollie as friends and gotten to see them move as humans and fellow dancepartiers for about a year.

I generally LOVE making movement for men, but for a few reasons making for this piece and these men is hard for me. I hesitate to generalize or present some over-masculinized or flat stereotype of "maleness" in the movement that I make for them (at this point i'm even somewhat internally conflicted about doing a piece that divides so neatly into "male" and "female", even though that's not a new thing for me), and yet at the same time, the piece is about my specific relationship to a male person, portrayed through these series of duets. Yet at the same time, he wasn't even stereotypically male. Yet it's important to me that there is a distinction between the male and female movement because at some level, the piece is about the end product of how the inherent differences in how men and women communicate and think. And yet.
So that's a big one for me right now. The mens.

Another big question is how much to "stay true" to my instincts and ideas, and how much to really listen to the feedback that i'm getting from myself, the dance world around me, and on past work. It's clearly always a balancing act, but it always needs to be re-negotiated. I got really freaked out after the first DTW meet and greet cocktail party really realizing for the first time what Ashley was going through last year - that, yes, it's incredibly intimidating to feel like "The Dance World" is watching closely to see what you'll make. Kind of the same way, i've been meeting more and more people who "read my blog" which is always hugely flattering and exciting, and a little bit terrifying. The world is watching. Who knew? I did. Or maybe I didn't...

Anyway. Part of the fear is that I'm a narrative choreographer. Yes i'm interested in the movement, but not for the sake of it just being movement. I'm interested in what it says and why it happened, and everything that it might convey in a personal, historical, or social context. As long as i've been making dances, it's been the "story" first (or the images, relationships, etc.) and the movement to convey or explore it second. Which is not to say that the movement itself isn't at the heart of my work - i'm a firm believer in the idea that the movement we do can tell us more about what we're feeling than we could ever intellectualize or verbalize or tell. It's just that narrative is so out of style right now - so many choreogrpahers working to deconstruct the limits of narrative work and so many critics just beginning to speak that language - that i hold fear that the work will be dismissed as "young" just because it's telling a story. Which it might be. Because I am. But my belief is that the work is strong (or...you know...will be) and that the use of narrative is a choice and viewpoint rather than a fallback or lack of innovation.

Over drinks with ashley a few weeks ago, I confided that "i don't know if i'm revolutionary enough for new york modern dance" - a statement that she prompted me to really take some time to think about and work through. After seeing two "fall for dance" shows at city center as well as a handful of other work, and doing a good bit of searching online, i'm ready to amend that statement. All of NY modern postmodern dance isn't revolutionary. It isn't all new. And that's okay. My obsession and instinct (regardless if i ever succeed in in) is to make new after new piece. I don't want to see the same thing over and over again. So it's easy for me to fall into this trap of thinking that i'm not "new" enough, because it's a standard that i'm holding myself to. For now, i'm trying to concentrate on making exactly what i want to make and holding myself to that standard - really being 100% satisfied.

I am sharing a lot more of this process than i ever have before - posting all these videos and such. So. Ask me questions. What do you want to know about the process? About what we're making? About the work? About our business practices? I'm hoping to do some website updating soon, and that will have all our new writing up there, but in the meantime, let's keep talking. Hope this was interesting for you to read - it helped me organize my continuums a little.

Gender Studies + Motion Capture = Because it's cool.

Hey all,
Lindsay passed this on to me, so i thought i would share it as a refreshing palette cleanser between the wallops of hypermedia that we've been serving up. Check it out!

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/BMLwalker.html