Site note: new address to get to dialogues....

the Dialogues page is now found at this address:

http://erikandtheanimals.com/Pages/Dialogues.html

i reformated the page to give each talk there own subpage so there is more room to grow.

Matt Wilson is here: http://erikandtheanimals.com/Pages/Dialogues/Matt.html

Deva Eveland: http://erikandtheanimals.com/Pages/Dialogues/Deva.html

Asimina Chremos: http://erikandtheanimals.com/Pages/Dialogues/Asimina.html

Richard Curtis: http://erikandtheanimals.com/Pages/Dialogues/Richard.html

Stan Shellabarger: http://erikandtheanimals.com/Pages/Dialogues/Stan.html

Jeff Harms: http://erikandtheanimals.com/Pages/Dialogues/Jeff.html

Redmoon Theater's "Spectacle '05: Loves Me...Loves Me Not"

The popular Redmoon Theater has mounted another of their summer spectacles, Loves Me…Love Me Not, this time creating a fire lit set of a sunken house and floating barges in the lagoon in Jackson Park behind the Museum of Science and Industry.

After the devastating hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast of the U.S. the story of the production became that Redmoon engaged in a frantic rewrite of the piece to avoid the misinterpretation of the work as exploitive.

Unfortunately, the resulting spectacle was empty. Their romantic scenic design, which is usually a strength, was murky, under-lit and too far away from the audience. The action often did not read at that distance and I wonder if there was much plot there even if it had.

There is a generous critical review in Tribune's Metromix up right now that I suggest reading.

Mostly it is on point I think though Keery Reid waxes philosophic and reaches a bit with the claim that,

This isn't a piece of theater as much as it is an attempt to create a meditative space for an audience, and though it falls short occasionally

While I feel that the piece fell short more that occasionally as a narrative, I think it is misleading to suggest that this piece works as a static object of contemplation also.

What was this spectacle of contemplation? To me it seemed like an attempt at the spectacle of children playing in a bathtub. An attempt at a drama of childhood innocence that perhaps was intended to bolster our spirits and remind us stay hopeful. But, in it's murkiness and emptiness Redmoon’s good intentions seemed desperate and scared in this spectacle.

The romantic drama of good people making a good effort at trying to survive in a sort-of challenging, sort-of wondrous, waterlogged world was thin. This came together as a collection of quirky Muppet show type figures that would seem to love to give gifts, sing and dance but unfortunately, there is some lurking authoritative figure who occasionally shines their gaze on the party and that is supposedly a scary drag. Mom is threatening to take you out of the bath, and it is the fear of this authority that breaks up the natural goodtimes and leads to base thievery and violence.

I am not left contemplating Redmoon's whimsy nor charged with hope in the face of recent national tragedies and am unconvinced by their anti-authoritarian posturing. I am left feeling Redmoon is more scared to lose their fan base and funders than actually give us the fantastic hope-filled goods. I wonder what the original piece contained before the specter of losing their status robbed the show of its content.

I believe this world they tried to suggest was one where the population was built into an enduring watery environment rather recovering from a temporary cataclysm and were beginning to transform their landscape with their engineering ingenuity (a Redmoon strength) by creating objects that transform for multi-use. It seems like that imaginitive world, more fleshed out, even if lacking a solid plot would be inspirational and heroic as Redmoon seeks to be...as Henson or Chaplin has in the past.

I am ready to accept Redmoon’s imagination and maintain the distinction between their work and reality. I hope they underestimate their audience and that their fans can approach the Redmoon work with at least that much trust and effort as well.

Magic in Chicago & the KTMA Variety Show @ Links Hall

The Virginia based KTMA group brought their variety show to Links Hall last weekend. The "variety", which the audience was asked to respond with "is the spice of life", consisted of short vignettes of magic, moralistic storytelling, a few jokey bits, and a couple short films. It was a good hearted and amateurish.

My favorite bit was one where one of the three magicians, who took turns doing their bits, brought out a small mock up of a stage with a small figure of a man seated in a chair. The magician removed the top of the figure’s head to reveal a small egg-like round white ball. He picked up this ball, which was some kind of putty actually, and quickly shaped it into a heart, flower, a snail and several other little shapes. It fished with a quick slight of hand move which made the putty disappear and then reappear back in the figure’s head…as if by magic.

This kind of moment where the actual transformative magic of being on stage and leading the imagination of the audience combined with skillful moment of stage magic could have really sold this show I think. Unfortunately moments where the malleability of the imagination of the audience was acknowledged was rare.

The slight of hand tricks often seemed unrehearsed or used corny props that made me feel like I was at a rec center. The set ups worked best when they were self-sufficient tales and the magic was a highlight, but the magicians constantly over complicated the set ups, asking the audience to perform confusing number games, failed to control and misdirect our attention, or failed to be sensitive to the audience at all...like asking a kid, who bravely took the stage when requested, to follow directions that where obviously over their head. I often wasn’t misdirected as much as confused and bored.

The strangest thing to me was ignorance to the sense of scale of the magical acts that were performed. Doing a close up trick were the audience is supposed to witness tiny rubber bands jump from finger to finger on the magician’s hand fails to impress if we cannot see the rubber bands to begin with. Perhaps it was in the name of variety.

I think these folks really enjoy magic and care about it so I hope they start to seek out more feedback on what they are doing.

Where does a magician get feedback in Chicago? This show has made me wonder if there is a contemporary magic scene in Chicago. I know there is a clown scene and magic is tied to the circus arts so I would be surprised if no one is doing anything. I have always thought it was a ripe medium for exploration. I know Matthew Barney is on record as an admirer of Houdini.

A grad student at the School of the Art Institute last year named Ross Moreno was doing some magic. It was often ironic failed attempts at magic if I remember correctly and he was reaching for a metaphor about growing up as a child. I wonder if he stuck with that line of work.

A quick internet search gave me this…

There is Tim Buche “tradeshow magician”

The Open Directory listings for Chicago magicians.

Here is a gallery in London that did a show linking stage magic and performance

Ross is apparently a member of the Society of American Magicians. Maybe you can find him performing at their get togethers.

What moral ground of performance...

I went away for a 10 day Vipassana meditation retreat recently. Whenever I do something like this I am intrigued by how the space, schedule and atmosphere is constructed to help the attendees focus and do what they are there to do...in this case meditate.

The style of Vipassana that is practiced at the retreat I attended was Goenka Vipassana. Vipassana being something like the original techniques of meditation that was taught by Gautama Buddha back in the day. Monks have maintained the techniques and philosophy over the years and stylistically it leans towards the monastic and renunciate path but there are also very clear access points for the non-monk (they call "householders").

I bring their monkness up because being renunciates they create their space very much to shut out distractions. There are many rules to follow during the retreat and it required a good deal of motivation and discipline to play along. One of the major contextual rules is a code of conduct that everyone is supposed to agree to get the most out of the retreat. There are five rules for new students and seven for older ones. They include not killing, stealing, speaking lies and so on.

Now there are a number of reasons for these rules but one of the benefits I see is that there is a discipline that is clear to follow and helps you focus. In the case of the retreat, everyone is silent so there is no chance to speak lies but if you slip and speak accidentally you know it and you know you can return to the discipline of following the rules. So a clear guidepost is one good thing, increased discipline and focus is another.

Anyway to bring this over to considerations of art and performance, when I participate in this kind of retreat environment I think about the kinds of way I make performance and the kinds of disciplines that are involved. I also wonder what is the moral ground for making art?

Recently on the Chicago Other Group List, there has been a little bit of discussion about what is “going too far” in art making. Posters have brought up things like Damien Hirst’s shark as an example of wrongfully killing something for to make “art” and others have suggested that it is art’s job to “go too far”.

I think this is a good discussion and touches on many of the interesting questions about art and performance. How should it be taught, what is an artist’s responsibility to their society, what freedoms should artist be allowed that are beyond the norm, what is good art and what good comes of good art, and so on. How do you place any restrictions on art at all without censoring expression in a negative way?

Now I bet this discussion needs more space than a listserve to get worked out. What I take from that exchange is that there isn’t language and sense of agreement in the forward thinking art community that can quickly sum up an objective position that isn’t romantic avant-garde ideas of the self-sufficient need to push boundaries, a eco-sensitive moralistic angle, or strangely a free-market-economy-will-regulate-us point of view.

Reaching back to my experience in retreat I put forward some kind of moral ground is necessary to keep art from being too permissive and crappy but also liberal enough to resist the potential censorship of a hard-line moralistic angle.

As a starting point, it seems like a simple agreement like doctors take could be useful. An agreement to first do no harm.

How can art and performance harm? What is harm is necessary for the greater good? …there are a lot more question to bring up of course but the point is there should be some starting point and some sense of social responsibility in place that art can be held accountable to, and that artist can use to justify a unique social position that is potentially disruptive to social norms and that might not add to the national GDP.

I doubt any formula will be perfect without the wisdom to know when and to what degree to apply it. Performance art training, for instance, could start with the idea that you practice your art to develop the wisdom not to harm in the midst of the performance of the dynamic complexities of the world.

erik