8
The Courtauldian | Issue 1 | November-December 2012
The Rodin Project
Public art must not be sacred By LUCY WATLING
By LISA OSBORNE The sculpture and drawings of Rodin are the inspiration and impetus behind the latest dance venture from the choreographer Russell Maliphant titled The Rodin Project. Incorporating a fusion of contemporary dance, street dance, breaking, popping and locking, and capoeira martial arts, Maliphant and his dancers create a dance language that is diverse and eclectic. Maliphant and his company created a dynamic and engaging dance performance that had you marvelling at the incredible strength and beauty of the human form. We were shown the movements of the body through the acrobatics and contortions of the six person dance troupe, consisting of 3 men and 3 women. Maliphant has stated that it was not only the sculptural work of Rodin that inspired him, but the life of the artist himself, and this is evident in the enigmatic choreography and setting. Indeed the production is a truly collaborative production between choreographer and individual dance talent showcasing a variety of fortes. There is also the strong collaborative relationship between the composer Alexander Zekke, lighting designer Michael Hulls, set designers Es Devlin and Bronia Housman and costume designer Stevie Stewart. Thus the team behind The Rodin Project function collaboratively and reconstruct some of Rodin’s most famous sculptures. The first half seemed to be an abstracted representation of the artist’s studio, with white drapery and cloth covering the set like sculptor’s dustsheets. The dancers emulated the poses of Rodin’s work; the female dancers, also dressed in white draping material, held walking poses and their raised arms were reminiscent of Rodin’s Age of Bronze. As beautiful as the forms and shapes created were, it meant the first half was slow and static. Movements were constrained and stiff, and there was no sense of flowing continuity. Almost like the rough sketches of a preliminary sculpture, the dance felt like a series of positions rather than a continuous course of movement; shapes and forms on a page with no context or setting.
The second half of the production was when the sculptures started to come to life. The drapery was removed from the set to reveal large black building blocks from which the dancers tumbled, slid and hung. The movements became faster and more violent in rhythm with the staccato strings of composer Alexander Zekke’s score. Dickson Mbi’s popping and locking was particularly impressive, with his body contorting into unbelievable shapes and moving in a rigid and controlled way across the set. There was also a particularly beautiful sequence where the three female dancers and Thomasin Gülgeç, formerly the star of the Rambert dance company, moved fluidly with one another. The dancer’s arms intertwined and turned one another and supported each other’s bodies in fluid synchronicity that was beautiful to watch. Considering the source of inspiration, some nudity was an inevitability. There was a fair share of nudity from the male contingent of the dance troupe with much male torso on show and used solely for highlighting the muscularity and the great degree of strength needed to perform some of the most acrobatic of sequences (which was in no way a delight to the female members of the audience). One such passage and a highlight of the performance was a sequence between Mbi and Tommy Franzén in which the two dancers showcased a gravity defying arrangement using solely the strength of their arms as they held their positions and hung off a vertical block of scenery. The scene was reminiscent of the Gates of Hell, with the two dancers fluidly moving up, down and in front of the rectangular block creating shapes and forms and tumbling from the top in ways that not even Rodin could have imagined the human body capable of. There was also a sequence in which a female dancer moved elegantly fluidly without the hindrance of costume. However in no way was the use of the nude female form gratuitous or voyeuristic. Hull’s lighting prevented the dance from looking pornographic, but captured the sensuality and beauty of the movements. The nudity was a visual reminder of the source material and the role of the female as model and
Photo: Laurent Phillipe muse. Having said that, it did also highlight this rather demeaning role of women in art history, and one that sadly was also reflected in this dance piece. The dominance and incredible strength of choreography for the male dancers meant that the women were given a rather backseat role. Their choreography always seemed superfluous and unnecessary, like staffage in a landscape. They seemed like mere foils for the male dancers and sadly were quite forgettable. If the choreography for the female dancers was enhanced then the production would improve fantastically. As it stands this production is already a revised edition of the dance premiered in February. It seems the production today is much smoother and less frenetic than its predecessor; however there is still room for much more improvement. It would have been all too easy for Maliphant to create a pastiche of Rodin’s sculpture, with the dancers recreating the statues and then moving directly into another pose. However, what Maliphant creates instead are subtle allusions and phrases that are reminiscent of Rodin’s sculpture. It makes the dance accessible and open; nothing is lost without intimate knowledge of Rodin’s oeuvre. Likewise to the art history student like myself there were recognisable suggestions of The Burghers of Calais, The Thinker, The Three Shades, and his sculptural studies of the nude form. You get the sense that Maliphant only worked from images of the sculptures rather than visiting the actual three dimensional works. To art historians who always believe that seeing the original artwork in the flesh is the only way to truly appreciate and understand it this may seem counterintuitive. However, I believe it has helped Maliphant to create a piece of dance that prevents it from being a pointless repetition of Rodin’s work but transforms it into something much more interesting. What he captures is the essence of the sculptural process and Rodin’s work. There is the distinct understanding of what the human body can do and a sense of coming full circle; from the human body, to the sculptural form through Rodin’s hands and reinterpreted through the human body again.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the sculptures of Henry Moore. I admire the politics of a man who sought to make his sculpture publicly accessible. And growing up in Leeds, home to the Henry Moore Institute, I fully appreciate the impact these pieces can have on an urban landscape. Yet I have to agree with Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahmen in his decision to sell off Moore’s Draped Seated Woman, a decision
sale is a mistake, Tower Hamlets residents deserve ‘great art’, to sell would set a dangerous precedent allowing state organisations at al evels to slash funding for the arts. Communities need art, the chance to see it, to understand it, to create it. But the grossly inflated prices for certain modern artists today are entirely incompatible with these ‘arts in the community’ arguments. According to towerhamletsfoodbank.org.uk, the
Photo: Howard Stanbury which has attracted much hostility in recent weeks. The borough acquired the sculpture in the 1960s direct from the artist – at a reduced price – to adorn the Stifford housing estate in Stepney Green. Following the demolition of the estate and acts of vandalism against the sculpture, it was removed for its own protection to the Yorkshire Sculpture Park near Wakefield, where it has remained for the last fifteen years. The sculpture is now worth an estimated £20 million; the council is facing £90 million of cuts over the next four years. The great and the good of Britain’s cultural life have come out in opposition to this planned sale, from Tate director Sir Nicholas Serota to the Olympic ‘man du jour’ Danny Boyle. The general consensus: the
average annual salary of a Tower Hamlets resident is £11,400. How can a council – charged with supporting the welfare of its residents – justify this size of asset sitting unused, and as far as its London-based citizens are concerned, unseen, in a West Yorkshire park? Sell the sculpture. Set aside £100,000 for ten new public artworks, by upcoming British artists, to be displayed around the borough. Set aside another £100,000 to fund sustainable art education programmes in the area, perhaps a further £100,000 to fund undergraduate fine arts scholarships. You still have £19,700,000 remaining to address Tower Hamlets’ more material needs. I know Henry Moore would have agreed.
Photo: Laurent Phillipe