Forming the Ensemble

I worked with four students from the University of Salford from September 2014 to June 2016, meeting each week for three hours each time. We met in the same dance studio at the University; it was important that we met in the same space as this provided continuity and familiarity with the structure, environment and experience of the laboratory environment.

As part of the inquiry, I intended to establish a group; however, I did not set out to train the ensemble, but rather to share my knowledge of tasks, objects and rules. Much like Gilbert Ryle’s (1963) discussion in which he articulates knowing how as distinct from knowing that. The knowledge about the practice is distinct from being able to analyse or explain how and why it is effective. The knowledge of how is, therefore, embodied in my conduct of the creative process.

It is not a case of having a prior theoretical knowledge of what should be done […] and putting these ideas into practice; nor is it a question of envisaging the work in theory and finding a physical form to illustrate that idea. Rather [...] the action is embedded in the doing, of which she may not be reflectively aware. (Pakes in Butterworth& Wildschut, 2009, p.12)

To support this, two elements were introduced and framed as the ‘principles’ of the process:

• Pay little attention to ‘why’ or ‘what for’, but instead focus on ‘what if’.

• There is no conception of right or wrong; ‘if I go left, and you all go right – that’s fine’.

These two statements are vital to my approach; they intend to set the precedent that we will work on and explore all the options of ‘what if’. This is intended to build a culture of spontaneous action and reaction. Moreover, by dictating that there is no right or wrong, while highlighting the notion that the ensemble did not need to adjust their movements to match my own, shifts the power and the focus back to each other and away from one person.

The focus on physically moving during the task rather than the form, shape or pattern of the movement, allowed the ensemble to become unconstrained. They were not afraid of doing the wrong movement, distanced from any concerns of not being able to move or perform the action in the right way; as such, their actions were less restricted.

Goat Island’s director Hixson comments that providing a task is a gateway or opening into creating physical work. Hixson claims that this can provide those with ‘little formal training in dance, a way into the physical’ (Hixson in Bottoms and Goulish, 2007, p.152), facilitating an environment in which task becomes action. Furthermore, Hixson stated, while exploring task-like activities with non-dancers, that the ‘self-consciousness and pretension [fell]

away, leaving an immediacy to the activity’ (Hixson in Bottoms and Goulish, 2007, p.70). The use of task as action aided the collective’s characteristic physical movement scores by adding to and developing the vocabulary of movement.

The overarching nature of my laboratory was relaxed, partially due to the lack of pressure to conform or be ‘right’. There was an attempt to resist the pressure or desire to ‘understand’. Instead, we focused on the unknown or the ‘what if’. To do this, the laboratory sessions were constructed around the people in the room at the time and a trust in a loose plan:

[…] We were ourselves. You came in the room with some sort of plan. The outline of a plan. And by following that plan, I started looking at things from outside the box. You put me in situations which were foreign to me. The atmosphere was relaxed. You were relaxed […] we chatted about everyday stuff. And then suddenly talked about the actual [work]. (Agratini, 2016)

This ensemble member was expressing the culture of transparency in the laboratory; thereby indicating that, through the exposing of the plan or rules, the ensemble can respond spontaneously and with ownership. By refusing concepts of ‘my idea,’ the ensemble could share ownership and be free in their response. The ensemble did not feel as if I was training them: ‘I don't think you actively trained/taught us. You let us into your way of working, placed rules in the space and we adapted to them and slowly grew an understanding’ (Wood, 2016). This approach is reminiscent of dance practitioner Trisha Brown. It has been noted by Sally Banes (1987) that Brown would often work with non- performers or untrained dancers and it is through the experience of sharing in her process that they become trained in her techniques (Banes, 1987). Within my practice, rather than focusing on training, I concentrated on sharing ‘something’ with them, which allowed them to develop alongside my approach.

The willingness to endure physical extremes was founded in the knowledge that we would work to the extreme of our endurance, supported by the knowledge that the rules would then be put in place to maintain the endurance required. An example of this can be seen in ‘The Biscuit Task’ (see section 10 of The Rule Book).During the process of creating the task, we miss-measured The Biscuit Square so it was too big by 3cm each side; furthermore,

the type of biscuits chosen were the wrong texture. When combined with the larger square, this resulted in the ensemble members feeling physically sick, with one member having to step out.

[…] those biscuits, wow, literally probably the worst 23 minutes of my life. I’m being dramatic, it’s probably not the worst 23 minutes of my life, but it’s up there. Biscuit square was horrendous today, just horrible, deeply unenjoyable. (Tansey, 2016) We did biscuit square all the way through to the very end for the first time and it was incredibly difficult. Unfortunately we got the number wrong for how big the square was meant to be […] we did 146 cm and it was just way too big and we think we have to make it even smaller than the 143 it’s meant to be! […] it just seemed very tortuous and not enjoyable to watch towards the end because it got so hard to eat all the biscuits [...] and it turned from something quite fun and playful into something quite hard to watch. (Joachim-Farrow, 2016)

Consequently, the task crossed a line from being fun and challenging to being unbearable, emphasising the need for rules and the difference between just carrying out an action and working through a balanced task. The process of layering rules slowly and considering the value of them is of utmost importance to the process. Here, we showed careless disregard for two of our rules, namely the size of the square and type of biscuit, meaning that the task ‘failed’ as endurance levels were too high and it became too physically challenging. Despite this experience, the ensemble remained confident in the task and process, knowing that by exploring the ‘what if’ we would find and create new rules, as emphasised here in these reflections:

[…] we had a big discussion afterwards, so hopefully we’ll, you know, talking about umm shortening the square and biscuit selection is clearly quite key […]. (Tansey, 2016)

[…] we add more rules in order to restrict ourselves so that the overall product is more layered. (Agratini, 2016)

The combination of commitment to doing and transparency during the process encouraged mutual trust, as the focus on each other was generated by an implicit, tacit knowledge, amongst the ensemble, that the tasks and rules would become self-evident throughout the process. This shared or tacit knowledge provided the basis for the ensemble to communicate with each other and co-ordinate their actions. This allowed the members to draw on the knowledge, that they held tacitly, by reproducing the routines and structures of the process. This can be likened to Clive Lawson and Edward Lorenz’s (1999) article Collective Learning, Tacit Knowledge and Regional Innovative Capacity in which they state ‘[m]uch of this knowledge is tacit in nature. Members of the organization are able to co- ordinate their action and act capably without needing, or necessarily being able, to articulate in words or diagrams exactly how they accomplish this’ (Lawson & Lorenz, 1999, p.307).

These unspoken or ‘tacit’ principles of the laboratory remove the complexity of ‘training’, resulting in an apparent simplicity in my approach, as detailed by an ensemble member here: ‘[Jenny’s] way of working I'd say is coming into the space, removing shoes and socks, setting up equipment, doing a warm-up and creating tasks’ (Wood, 2016). By embodying the outlined principles, I was able to create a collective language and method wherein the commitment to doing and ‘what if’ fuels an endurance and dedication to tasks and rules.

This approach is situated within my overarching methodology of Practice as Research (PaR), which frames and drives the modes of research undertaken. The following sub- chapter will determine the vocabulary used to articulate my primary methodology of PaR, to address the paramount concern of this thesis, the acknowledgement of the fluid relationship between the individual and collective, thus providing new insights into the formation of performance ensembles.