after before (pablo)

one post before the feedback meeting of tomorrow. or: one after the performances of yesterday (and the day before, and the other). I thought that it would be good to write down some thoughts on things just after the performances, and just before getting informed by our guests/outside eyes/advisers/evaluators (o sea: Gabriel Smeets, Gonnie Heggen, Marcel Bogers, Igor Dobricic & Johan Forsman).

where to start? or: what to start with? or: what to write about? …

how to look back? how not to refer to other people’s comments? it is very difficult during the process and also during the performances and also afterwards, to look at the work, to look at the piece and be innocent, to look at it without knowing everything, without knowing what it wants to be, without seeing what one would like to see. but I also don’t want to react only on what other people saw in it. that will come later. the whole point of writing now, is to write before reflecting on other people’s feedback.

I am very happy with the piece. I am happy with the changes triggered by our discussion after the dry-run. it made the piece more difficult to perform, and it set (improvisational) goals that are much more difficult to achieve, but the overall thing became much more risky and unique. and, strangely enough, very compact. I felt that the piece created a lot of strange tensions, a certain uneasyness that anyways kept the audience engaged or curious. the 3′ of darkness became more important than what I had foreseen, they seemed like a very necessary space for relief, for restarting things, for letting go. I don’t know exactly how to explain, but I was expecting the (long) blackout to restart the piece, but it felt more like it allowed for the audience to restart.

I felt that the movement material lost of a bit of its richness and complexity in the new structural choices, but on the other hand the whole issue of disociation and performing concentration became very potent. I think the long improvisations would need still more work (I don’t know in which sense) to allow for the audience to find the nuance within that kind of range – not to expect that the improvisations need to be more extreme but to be able to experience the sophistication and diversity within a very constrained range (of intensities, of options, of volumes, of durations, etc). I think some of it was there, but it could be much more captivating…

and then, though it’s been said over and over, here it is once more: the process was wonderful, and the people that worked in it were great. I am enjoying more and more the aspect of processes that is about constructing the working teams, the conditions, the connections, the relations, the communications. and these people were super commited and open, and worked really great (once more: thank you).

I am very grateful to have found something out of the not knowing where we were going… on some levels it’s been tough, it’s made me feel a bit detached, but maybe it’s ok: we were working with a lot of detachment, anyways. though I do regret not having produced a better picture, or a graphic design that was more connected to the piece.

so let’s see… I hope that will suffice for today. tomorrow will be another day.

Advertisements

~ by pfontdevila on March 23, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: