CHOREOGRAPHIC LANDSCAPES

Forum: Choreography&Complexity

davide
Moderator

The term choreographic landscape was born when I started to conceive the nature of my choreographic work as the creation of open territories rather than precisely defined objects. Using a different metaphor, they could also be described as virtual architectonic structures where the aesthetic parameters - in a way the possible configurations - are generated by arbitrary algorithms embedded in time and space.
The difference with traditional choreographic practice stays in the vast compositional freedom granted to the dancers: they can "explore" the choreography, meaning that they can travel, play, experiment, and interact among them freely. The very act of performing is intrinsically connected with a range of subjective interpretations, but in this way the expression of choices goes beyond the usual interpretative freedom, arriving to blend with the creative process itself, the genesis of the opera.

On a practical level, this is achieved by drawing choreographic maps rather than predetermined paths, thus defining the shapes, the shades, the imperviousness - in other words, fixing certain choreographic elements, but leaving partially undetermined the choice of relations between them.
In such way, the choreographic material is not "improvised" neither. We have a set of "seeds" (for instance, dance sequences or set of procedures [IF]…[THEN]…) and a set of relations expressing an open field of possible combinations.
With time this concept has brought about a formalized methodology that allows moulding the choreography on different levels. It is important to understand that this is not necessarily done in terms of 'original movement creation' as we could leave "open" a work whose basic elements have been choreographed in a very traditional fashion. Details are irrelevant; the choice of context is all-important.

max
Junior Member

hi davide, I think we met at the laban centre, on the occasion of your re/configuration conference about your non-linear choreography. I was really interested at that time about what you were trying to do. I made a piece few years ago (1997) called topografia 1:15000, that should have had a similar procedure. I was interested at that time in internet language, web systems and structure. well, I must say I still was in a structuralist phase of my career, having started at the university in italy, then finished with a thesis about theatre and video semiotics.
then I happened to realise that the idea of complex structures such as the web, bring you inevitably to consider structures-non-structures, such as landscapes, where time and space have a really different configuration from linear sequences: have a virtuality, that is a possibility to explore relationships that are something else than cause-effect (timewise) or behind-before (spacewise). it surely changes any vision of structured work.

I must say that I read with interest your articles about nonlinear choreog, improv, and don't remember what else.

I still think that the opening towards new visions and possibilities: you say that your structures can be danced indifferently by one or ten dancers: how does this change affect the work? does it bring the work and your intentionality to consider choreographic process from a point of view that is different from classic choreography (I mean mainstream)? sometimes I think that if we carry on talking about structure, steps, choreographer's objective position, superimposed structure.... we still are positioned in a world of classical issues. communication, are we considering what internet has brought to communication? different systems of reading and writing and timing and spacing.... and composing.

davide
Moderator

Structuralism, deconstructivism, formalism... above all, these words represent a way of thinking . When we add certain specific cultural references (web, architecture, etc), it is easy to end up following similar tracks. There is a convergence of ideas that is rather widespread; a convergence that can be identified as contemporary culture.
On a broad level we all understand each other and can share a common sense or ideal... on a personal level the differences, motivations, interpretations are variegated. Here is where an interesting dialogue can take place.

Many things have changed since last year, conceptually and artistically. A lot of my activities until now have been based on the need of clarifying a solid methodological background, to create from scratch a way of doing that expressed a way of thinking, rather than borrowing a way of doing to express a particular thought. Yet, I never create for the form sake, I always create for the individual. Ultimately it is not the form that attracts my interests, it is the mind that deals with it. This point should be clarified, I am aware of that. But how to explain a work that does not talk about the mind, instead leaving the mind to talk about itself? The form is the common playground, the given set, the shared language, and a communicative convention. To remain silent I have to leave the structure open... and yet I have to create a structure not to be silent. Does it make sense? My desire is to push people to think in a certain way rather than having them to think about something. That's why I often keep "existentialistic" issues on the background, because these are my world, the possibilities that I have chosen. I like to show them but they are not the viruses that I want to spread. I want diversity not homogeneity. There are a few contradictions in what I have written, I know. Anyway, those are just hints.

What is new? Here is a question I never ask myself. Not that I think: "nothing is new" as some people do, or: "everything is new" as others do. I simply do not think about it. Therefore if I am caught referring to it, people should know that I am cheating, borrowing from rhetoric to achieve a particular effect.