Skip navigation

IMG_9321

This is the fifth in a series of posts leading up to Skewed Visions’ remaking of the performance EX from 2014 called EX(remade) in June 2016. In addition to maybe supplying some history and background from the initial production, this series might also provide some context for the current production, including how the current piece is being shaped out of what came before. This post is about what the framing device has turned into.

So last time I talked about how this version has to be “deeply different” from the 2014 production. Now I’m regretting my past self. (Not unusual.)

So rather than this production being a quotation of the earlier one, or a framing, I am thinking of it as a remembering. A remembering of the past performance, but also of the images that the last performance was made from. Also a remembering of my mother and my sister. But all of these rememberings are all indirect — or secondary, because not only are they are after the original events, but they are also after the original performance that is itself a sort of staging of memory images from the original events.

And as we know from our friends who read science articles, and the internet (who is also sometimes a friend, but one you can’t trust because they frequently have little psychotic episodes), when we remember something we don’t remember the original event but only the last recollection that our brain performed of the original event. So we know memory is mutable, and dependent on the present, and is not an accurate representation of the past so much as it is a accurate reflection of the circumstances in which the action of remembering takes place. EX(remade) is this kind of memory.

Another metaphor I have used in rehearsal is that we are pulling this show out of the compost heap where it has been left after it ended in October two years ago and showing it, complete with coffee grounds and banana peels still hanging off it.

A less moist image might be that of pulling an old scrapbook out of the attic full of pictures that have faded, are dusty, and some are missing. But that metaphor is a little dry and trite for my taste.

In any case, the phenomenon that has happened in rehearsals as we tried to recall the last performance was fascinating and pertinent and we will continue it into the performance. We each have different ideas of what is supposed to happen, of what had happened. We disagree, offer suggestions, maybe even argue. I am trying to incorporate repetitions and elisions, gaps and changes in perspective so that this performance is an accurate representation of different sort than EX: another kind of loss. It represents changing relationships to my memories, to the objects that stimulate these memories, and to the losses of my sister and my mother that are both irrevocable and immune to recovery.

Advertisements
four people squished behind a picture frame

EX 2014. Billy Mullaney, Annie Enneking, Megan Mayer, Charles Campbell

This is the fourth in a series of posts leading up to Skewed Visions’ remaking of the performance EX from 2014 called EX(remade) in June 2016. In addition to maybe supplying some history and background from the initial production, this series might also provide some context for the current production, including how the current piece is being shaped out of what came before.  Last time I talked about using a song to shape the performance. This post comes out of my ass.

For the first time since its recording, I watched documentation of EX all the way through. If you aren’t familiar with the pain of watching your own work, you likely have a healthier self-esteem than I. One thing I noticed — not only becauseI wanted to extract my eyeballs every other second — was the fact that the performance of EX(remade) in June 2016 must be deeply different than EX was back in 2014.

Of course from the beginning it was intentional to remake this performance, rather than to reproduce it. As I have noticed several times while watching “the same” performance at a further distance in time from its initial manifestation, this quickly lends itself to a kind of bleeding of the work. Where, although all the punctuation is correct, the lifeblood of the experience has been drained away and we’re left with a convincing simulacrum. I have found myself wanting to defend these High-Definition Digital Copies, but doing so makes me feel cheap and as if I had fallen for a simple con I should have seen through. The stakes ought to be higher than that.

So now but I also don’t want to do lose what I alluded to in an earlier post, a desire to resist conventional modes of dealing with these things so that the mundane, practical and pervasive (skin, dust, blinking) nature of the suffering and loss is present and tactile. And if reproduction would turn this texture into a glossy image of the show, doing something like “quoting” it (yes, my darlings, that crossed my mind — despite how it now looks like intellectual masturbation) is just as bad.

So what is “deeply different,” wise guy?

Um.

I think it’s simply because I am making a piece about two years ago, rather than making a piece about now. In that way, in my head, it’s like something being framed.

I hope it works.

IMG_9566

photo: Willis Bowman

This is the third in a series of posts leading up to Skewed Visions’ remaking of the performance EX from 2014 called EX(remade) in June 2016. In addition to supplying some history and background from the initial production, this series may also provide some context for the current production, including how the current piece is being shaped out of what came before.  Last time I talked about how the process originally began out of loss. This post has a little bit about the whole deal with using a song to shape the performance.

If there is a black hole at the center of loss, then my challenge was to resist making “something” out of that nothing, and instead to keep from covering that hole with “meaning” and let it remain the “nothing” that it is.

In making EX, I returned to structure to help me out.

Back in 2007 I gave my part of Strange Love (device/performance) a structure that I thought was intimately connected to the content of the piece as I saw it. If the initial impulse of that piece was to bring the life of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove film into contemporary political reality because of a rhetorical echo between “communism” and “terrorism”, than the trope of cyclic returning was apt, and so a cyclical structure seemed appropriate for the performance — even though  there was nothing inherent to the material I was using that demanded it. The film isn’t particularly cyclic.

It was my impression at the time that the triple recurrence of the performance gave shape to what was essentially a self-destructive entropic dive. I hoped that it also helped make my point, such as it was.

For EX, I didn’t want there to be this kind of “positive” outcome, a shape that lent itself to meaning. But my experience with Strange Love suggested that using a very concrete structure was useful to give the audience something to hang onto when what there was in terms of “plot” or “narrative” was being destroyed along with language, images, and theatrical conventions. So it was very purposeful to take the structure of Radiohead’s song Codex and use it as the scaffolding that the material that we were making in the studio could live on. I didn’t want to “destroy” plot, narrative, conventions, in EX. I wanted to get along with the tattered remains that I was left with. I wanted the emptiness.

So the connection between the song and the performance would be arbitrary, but purposeful. (The echo of the name was coincidental.) There were repetitions in EX, but they occurred not because I wanted them to, or because the idea of repetition was thematically relevant to the content of the piece we were making, but because the song structure provided it for us.

I took advantage of my participation in Emily Gastineau’s project for her Art Is Easy in 2014 at the Minnesota Biennial ,,, at the Soap Factory to map out the song’s structure. I taped a very long sheet of paper to the wall, plugged in my earbuds, and made a lot of marks. At the end of this mapping I had a chart that more-or-less represented the sonic aspects of the song over time, with each kind of sound having its own track across the page. Each second of the song translated into 12.63 seconds of performance. Billy decided to call this sheet of paper that we’d tape up and take down at every rehearsal, the Codex. Then, after coming up with a lot of different kinds of things in the studio, I assigned them to different tracks on the Codex. Voila.

That’s why although there are a few seconds of the Radiohead song that are looped at one point in the performance, there is no need to know the song, or hear the song, or know about this process, to experience the performance fully. The connection between the two is arbitrary and structural, and doesn’t allow the imposed gratification or meaning of the song to shape the content of the black hole. But it does — if you’ll excuse this runaway metaphor — mark the black hole’s event horizon.