Moving in Extended Spaces

This workshop was built to explore our perception, sensors and movement in spaces that combines projections of other sites which has other performers. Projecting another space in the room may create a feeling of an “extension” of the room or a portal to a different site(s), even more so when there are other people/performers in the other place(s). The workshop explored the tensions between the projection that functions as an object, as part of a scenography and as a spatial bridge which creates a kind of an extension of the room. The workshop aimed to find a realization and to deepen an understanding of relations among the two (or more) spaces and the bodies in each space.

On Tuesday morning Anais, David, Genovel, Yolanda and me explored space, body and the relation among them. We met at HTTP, Furtherfiled studio. Thanks to their creativity and interest ideas and exploration were taken further. We tried to create language and an understanding of this multi-space, that is the extended space. Thanks to Ale and Pollie from Furtherfield, we were lucky to have all the equipment and facilities needed. And technical problems were solved rather quickly with the the AMAZING support we got in the studio. This is also the place to thank Natalie and Ayle, we even had a team that documents the whole process.

We started the workshop with building a communal language of space and volume. We started from our own bodies and slowly expanded to the room and the other bodies around. Working with a partner served an exploration of the communication between two spaces and bodies. Gradually I introduced distance between performers with aim to bring in the notion of projection and a physical distance that is being mediated with projection. We focused the exploration on presence and what does it mean to deliver our presence using web applications. I am aware it is tricky to say here deliver presence. We have tried to feel with our senses of touch and smell the presence of the other that is placed in the other room with the eye closed.

First day finished with realizations and thoughts of developments for the next day. Working towards extending the space to people outside of the studio as well using TAP (a web application developed by Suzon Focks from Austrerlia). The questions that came up were about –

  • The stage language that we use and what kind of rules does it bring to the performance
  • There are things that we go back to – the typical, familiar. How can change that, and to what?
  • The ratio between the spaces, does or can it deliver authentic performance or something that is believable?
  • Where is the focus for the performer and for the spectators? Is it the screen? is it the live performer? how is the focus is being negotiated?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The next day invited the participants to lead 20 min exercise that may assist us in the development of this day. Using the TAP we explored how our bodies are reflected in another space and what kind of space does it create online and in the different physical spaces. First we played with it using the two spaces. When Katarina from Balgrade and Suzon from Australia joined us we found how the perception of space is changed and that we should find the right language and tools in order to coordinate and understand each other.

This day has left us with a lot of points that need to be taken further and explore more. Each of these points are at least another 2 day workshop if not a whole phd… Some of the points were:

  • Looking at the projection makes that what you see is what you get. How can it help us create the same world but with 2 and 3 dimensions?
  • How is the body useful between these dimensions, and what does it mean in the performance when a similar body is presented twice on stage (the physical body and its projection on screen)? Is it possible to moderate the focus between the bodies on stage (projected and physical)?
  • What does the projection mean in regard to the prolongation of the body?
  • What language should we use when we describe what we see? What does it mean reverse/mirror perhaps even up/down?
  • How does the perspective of the camera changes the performative language and what does the ability of changing the camera perspective promotes and creates?
  • There are different kinds of audiences, how does the performance relate to each kind of the audiences?
Advertisements
This entry was posted in performance, rehearsal, thinking process and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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