"..a real and potentially politically potent move

against dominating forces ...of molarity..."
 
 

The project at Chisenhale Dance Space is embedded into a line of research that started with a thesis written by Claudia Flammin in 1996 entitled 'Un lieu, une danse: Min Tanaka et la météorologie du corps', which was presented at the University of Paris 8, department of dance. In this thesis, she uses the concept of the Body Without Organs to analyze the work of Min Tanaka and his Body Weather Laboratory (BWL).

In the mid-eighties Min Tanaka collaborated with Félix Guattari, resulting a.o. in a book (Agencements, Japanese language only) and in several performances given by Min Tanaka at Guattari's experimental psychiatric clinic 'La Borde'. 

Frank van de Ven, one of the organizers of the Chisenhale project, has been a long-time member of Min Tanaka's performance company Maijuku. In 1997 he initiated, together with colleagues of the BWL-platform in Amsterdam (a.o. Rolf Meesters & Angela Koehnlein), a working process in which notions from the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari are being put into dance practice.
Until now this process has led to four intensive research periods, a lot of short time theoretical & practical working sessions , an ongoing exchange with the faculty of philosophy at the University of Amsterdam and numerous (international) contacts, including a discussion on Internet.
 
 

London

Overall the research project at Chisenhale has been successful. In D&G terms new grass has shown its tips in even unexpected places. Instead of a broader approach used in earlier projects this time a quite extensive exploration of a few topics, especially the 'becomings', proved to be fruitful.
There has been a confrontation between insiders and newcomers (half & half) that was productive for both sides, although not always easy to handle. Sometimes we, being insider and organizer, did not have a suitable solution at hand (partly due to the attitude to set standards as high as possible).
Working with 'brand new' people in the One Day Event opened up new territories for all.
Where we had hoped for a few more UK-participants we sincerely think that the project succeeded in creating points of origin in the UK for future 'Dancing Bodies Without Organs'.
 
 

Habitual body

In the project we worked with different plateaus where theory and practice could meet each other. 
Some work was mainly physical, other work started with a certain mental state or from associations with an image. 
Integral part was/is the personal experimentation, up to the point where it is 'only' that. 
Considerations concerning this approach can be found in questions as when and where starts dance? and what is determining one's identity (=limits) as a dancer?

A main goal in this work with D&G's philosophy is attacking the habitual body.
Durational activities can produce a physical and mental state where certain habits disappear. So is working with a tired body sometimes revealing. Next question: is it possible to produce the same results in 5 minutes, using for example mental or physical memories?
 

Training

A 'training' is indispensable when involved in intense physical dance work. The MB has been very useful, although it was predominantly used as a warm-up for the 'real' work. The MB-work (mind-body, muscles-bones) derives from Min Tanaka's Body Weather Laboratory and is a strenuous work-out geared towards the investigation of physical border states and their mental connections. It is linked with the philosophical Body Weather concept that the body is not a fixed entity but, just like the weather, a 'constant flux of intensities'. 

At this stage we do not have a final solution for the inherent tension that exist between attacking the habitual body and repetitive/repeatable aspects of training. What kind of training a dancing BWO needs, if any, remains an open question.
 

Manipulation

In this project manipulation refers to one person working on another (or several on one, one on several), with the receiving party in different modes of acceptance. At first, the instructions were not to project one's own habits and desires onto other bodies and not to depend on previous accumulated knowledge, but to focus on what is 'necessary' for that particular body at that specific time. Later on it veered into manipulating/being manipulated with specific goals, manipulating into a becoming or requesting one, and working with varying muscle-tonus and leading into movement.
 

Outside

Working outside the studio (or even inside) in 'un-dance-like' situations is connected with a range of interesting qualities. The social environment can act as a discoder, the uncommon combination of (this) work and the environment creates new experiences and also broadens the scope of dance, the totally different relation with 'audience'.....
 

Physical fragmentation

As an entry into molecularising the body we concentrated on working arms mainly. The fragmentation goes towards moving both arms simultaneously but independent in such a way that the underlying organizational structure is explored, separated and diversified. Tools were two musical scores, daily-life movements, being manipulated by others etc. 
Some participants were not particularly fond of it. Others experienced the fragmentation work as a strong physical entrance to a territory where the organization of physicality and consciousness become strongly palpable and hard to change. 

At times people got stuck and lost overview of what it was they were exactly working on. 

From experiences in earlier projects as well, we tend to conclude that fragmentation cannot be easily tied to a visible physical image. (Exceptions do exist). When someone finally succeeds in having two different musical scores in two arms (or other body parts) it does not necessarily LOOK fragmented. But perhaps fragmentation is to be found in a body-mind state with a 'schizophrenic' quality?

All in all we consider the fragmentation work highly suitable to attack the habitual body.
 

Theory

From theory to .... practice; we did a lot of the latter and not enough of the first. Dearly missed was the exchange with a theoretician. In Amsterdam there is an ongoing discussion with Robin Brouwer, a philosopher specialized in Deleuze and Guattari who also cooperates with o.a. plastic artists and architects.
This discussion is very fruitful, both ways.
Furthermore, there has been little theoretical input from the participants. Should a next similar project have more organized brainwork?.
 

Other disciplines

There has been reactions from two musicians and one poet.
With one musician, Richard Scott, there has been a quite extensive contact via e-mail, fax and telephone. 
Just before the start of the project it became clear that he could not join the whole project because of personal circumstances. The only alternative was to work together for one or two days.
Taking in consideration the development of the project we decided to do this as a sub-project.
Finally Scott could not come at all.
This did not keep us from working on the combination of live music and dance in a program developed by Bertram Dhellemmes (Ouvroir de la Danse Potentielle, the OUDAPO machine; see D12). 
 

Video

There has been a lot of discussion about the production of video-material. Delivering a piece of art was not a real possibility within the goals and means (finances, equipment, people) of the research.
Making a reportage posed the question: can the present work be made visible on screen in a satisfying way? The answer from former 
experiences and from a try-out during the One Day Event was NO. The images did not reflect what was going on.
To get images that show the finesses of the work it certainly needs a professional camera-person and lots of time, energy and interest.
 

Some questions

Looking back at the discussions among the participants there are a number of questions that have to be considered for future projects. Three main ones are:
How to balance this kind of a research project where half of the group is well-informed and already working on the subject and the other half is not at all.
In a teaching situation it is clear there is something to be followed by the (new) participants. In research participants are supposed to contribute to capacity. But especially in working with the concepts of Deleuze and Guattari experience, learned skills and wishes are the first things to question.
Is there a limit to the possibilities of doing research on the dancing Body Without Organs with people who do have very little knowledge of the philosophy? Or, does this need a specific set-up?
How to find a satisfying and productive approach of analysis. On one hand there is a strong need for specifying the work; what are the physical and mental strategies one is using, what is visible and/or sensible, where starts the obscuring and demolishing of the philosophy?
On the other hand there is a need to NOT interpret or classify the work that people are doing. Sometimes language is a killing field for experimentation.
 

2 December 1998

Frank van de Ven / Rolf Meesters
 
 

Participants at Chisenhale, November 1998
 
 
 
 

Nonie Bradley (London)

Christine Quoiraud (France)

Frank van de Ven (Netherlands)