PUBLIC DANCE WRITTEN
PRODUCED
BY
BY
GRACE
TREACLE
NICOL
HOLASZ
Introduction
5
Why Create This Pack?
6
Benefits
10
Considerations
12
Considerations Expanded
17
Invitations and Suggestions
18
Rebalancing and Re-orientating the Relationship Between Body and Object
20
A Different Kind of Vulnerability
22
Pastoral Care
24
Audience Access
27
Information Sheets
29
Credits
30
Introduction BACKGROUND
L AY O U T
Together with Fashion designer Sinead O’Dwyer
Here is an outline of the format of the pack:
and collaborating dance artists Alethia Antonia, Dorna Ashory, Iro Costello, Florence Pearl
• It begins with the considerations that
and Natifah White we have been working on a
we might have to make when working in the
project to tackle themes of bodily autonomy in
contexts of dance in galleries and museums.
the context of dance, fashion & public spaces
These are not exhaustive and may include
(such as galleries and museums).
factors that you have already considered. They have been included to invite discussion and
The project, Slip Mould Slippery, explored
encourage reflection by all stakeholders.
practices for working together ‘in the studio’ and what it now means to make performance
• Some of the considerations are then
for public venues. Through R&D studio time,
unpacked with reference to my practice and
we have been questioning the autonomy of the
where these ideas have come from.
performer, the power dynamics of inviting people to be seen and where power and responsibility lie
•
within these exchanges. By putting these ideas
invitations and suggestions of possible ways
into practice, we formed the basis of where our
in which facilitators and dance artists might
conversations, around what dance artists might
address these points.
After the considerations, the pack explores
need from venues, have come from. We are offering up our research, which is still in practice
• Finally, there are links to ‘Information
and evolving, as an invitation to other artists and
Sheets’ for artists and venues and an additional
museum and gallery venues. As a consequence,
suggested ‘check list’ for venues. These can be
this pack does not offer a one size fits all solution
downloaded and edited to suit your work. They
but is intended to encourage dialogue between
are an attempt to find a practical and clear way
venues and artists as they attempt to navigate
to disseminate the thinking around this work.
new ways of working, especially in the current environment. We have been working specifically
This pack can be dipped into or read in full
in contexts of galleries and museums, but a
depending on your previous experience with
lot of these provocations can also be applied
this work. We hope it is helpful!
to any working relationship for dance. This work is a collective effort that is intended to go beyond institutional critique to ask how we might all care for each other when negotiating a shared environment.
W H Y C R E AT E T H I S PA C K ?
This research began before the pandemic, drawing on my experiences working as a choreographer and as a curator to explore the needs of dance artists. Before Covid, we were already dealing with the overworked and underpaid nature of our industry. We were all then hit by the closure of venues and the movement of funding for freelance artists into venues in the hope that already struggling arts venues would support freelancers. We then had to contend with how we might move forward together. Venues needed to be flexible, to honour agreements with artists set up prepandemic and to avoid being stuck in the systems that worked (or did not work) pre-covid. Our industry has shown that not everything that has come about as a result of Covid has been problematic. We have the opportunity now to rebuild our ways of working and relationships in an increasingly beneficial and sustainable way. The ideas presented here have been developed through two key considerations:
Vulnerability The pandemic has forced us to contend with the idea that we are all vulnerable (Butler 2006). Instead of seeing the exposure of our vulnerabilities as weakness or lack of independence, the pandemic has solidified the idea of vulnerability as a human condition. We are all vulnerable and we need each other. I believe that this exposure of our vulnerabilities can be used as a model and basis for ideas centred around rebuilding our working relationships in the wake of the pandemic. In short, the suggestion in this document is to invite artists, independent companies and venues to share vulnerabilities with each other in order to have more realistic and transparent relationships.
Care Due to the pandemic, the need for additional care when working within art-forms that deal with the live body has been thrown into sharp relief. In this new context, we not only understand an additional need for care but are practiced in how to care for each other. This pack has been compiled with the intention to offer questions for consideration as to how we might use this new understanding to take care of bodies in a wide range of performance settings. This need for care extends beyond risk assessments merely for physical injury prevention to any kind of injury prevention. This can be seen as a transferrable approach to wellbeing in any artistic project.
Benefits After speaking with artists working in the contexts of galleries and museums and representatives from public venues who programme this type of work, we have compiled a set of benefits for working in these contexts. These have been split up into benefits for artists, audiences and venues and include but are not limited to:
ARTISTS
•
Professional and artistic development
•
More opportunities (as there are more galleries than dance venues)
•
A broader audience or perhaps a chance to connect with a different audience
•
A different relationship to the audience and ideas of intimacy
•
A different relationship to space
•
New possibilities for choreographic methods and practice
•
A possibility of a greater understanding of visual and conceptual ideas
•
The more established set of discourse that visual arts has compared
to dance as an interesting point of connection for dance and choreography
to relate to, disrupt or oppose
VENUES
AUDIENCES
•
•
Sense of autonomy that might not come
in the theatre
•
Potentially more socially accessible than
the theatre because the venues often have
a no fee admission policy
•
A different relationship to the performers
Bringing in new audiences
•
Potentially a different perspective on
visual and conceptual ideas
•
A different relationship to the audience
and ideas of intimacy
•
A different relationship to space
and ideas of intimacy
•
A liveness
•
A chance to engage with a different art form
•
Creating new associations for objects/
•
The potential to access a venue’s ‘objects’
work in collections
through a different medium
•
Professional and artistic development
for staff
Considerations
This list contains possible considerations for both artist and venue
when
programming or making work for these types of settings. It is not exhaustive but hopefully can aid in understanding what we have been thinking about. The lists have been split into pre-Covid considerations and Covid considerations but the preCovid considerations still apply in the current environment.
PRE-COVID
C ONS I DE R AT I ONS
•
What the venue’s provision is in terms
of set up
•
Dancers’ need for dressing rooms
•
Venue’s relationship with Artist - the
•
Budgets/ the different economic models
difference between commissioning the
of dance and visual art (dance artists
work or receiving the work (e.g. how
needing to be paid before the performance
involved the venue is in the creation period)
for rehearsals etc and visual artists being
paid once an art object is bought)
•
Programmers needing to or having
pressure to programme multiple works
at the same time due to the venue’s targets
•
The ‘contracts’ that we enter into
•
Crediting dance artists / choreographers
for their work
•
Museums and galleries need to safeguard
to establish audience/ performer
objects in their collections
relationships are different in a gallery
or museum opposed to a theatre
•
The venue could be a ‘loaded’ space
•
What the venue’s organisational
•
Long working hours for dance artists
if the work is durational to suit opening
times/ footfall of the museum or gallery
•
Noise levels affecting both dance artists’
work and/or venue workers
structures are •
Does the venue have limitations to
•
Potentially little knowledge of dancers
the kind of work that can be programmed
needs by staff outside the production team
and why?
•
Audiences’ access to the space / work
ADDI T IONAL DUE
C ONS I DE R AT I ONS
TO COVID
•
Artists may not have the skills
and/or resources to create digital work
Considerations Expanded
This section will take some of the considerations above and unpack them in more detail. These are the main considerations that have been highlighted in the project, Slip Mould Slippery. This is to help develop understanding about where these considerations have come from as well as to highlight why it is important to consider them when working with each other. If you would like to find out more about this, please watch the video.
Invitations and Suggestions These invitations and suggestions for artists and venues are based on the considerations detailed above from the perspective of what the pandemic has taught us about care and vulnerability. The first suggestion looks at how we might contend with the considerations around how a building is constructed both physically and culturally.
REBAL ANCING
R E L AT I ONS H I P
AND
R E - OR I E N TAT I N G
BETWEEN
BODY
AND
THE
OBJEC T
In some venues, the conversations about performance work seem to begin with the question, ‘How do we manage bodies so that they are not disruptive’. By using this as a conceptual starting point, the venue is deciding how that work will be perceived regardless of the intention of the artist and imposing a meaning which the artist might not have intend. In the work, Slip Mould Slippery, we have been looking at troubling the object/subject distinction (further discussion of this will be had in the talk 25th March 2021). The invitation here is to consider this idea of troubling the object/ subject distinction in order to attempt a sense of levelling out between object and subject. This rebalancing and re-orientating the relationship between body and object, will require a real conceptual shift;
Moving from the idea that a body is disruptive in a space, and therefore needs to be managed, to the idea that a body is welcome in the space. Additionally, it will require moving away from the idea that bodies can take care of themselves. The conceptual shift, in order to rebalance and re-orientate the relationship between object and body, might in this instance be achieved through an attentiveness to caring for bodies as a venue would objects. Venues are good at looking after the objects in their collections; there are condition reports, particular ways in which the objects are meant to be handled and time is given to maintenance and care in order to prevent damage. Handling artworks with care is not a new phenomenon. How can we then bridge the understanding between performance and visual art?
As discussed in the considerations section, in these contexts, there can, often, be little time for negotiation or capacity to create a culture of care. However…
proper care takes time. Giving time to care in projects is a means of supporting all those involved. Facilitating conversations between stakeholders obviously leads to greater mutual understanding and reduces areas of potential conflict. Some possible ideas around finding this additional time for care could be: •
Building in more conversations with artists at the start
of the process (and continuing this throughout projects)
•
Reducing organisational targets around programming
to free up programmers and producers to have mutually
constructive and more meaningful relationships with artists
•
Freeing up physical space in venues for artists to work in
order to build relationships with the venue’s community/staff
•
Building in opportunities for artists to connect with venue
audiences before and after the performance
•
Venues could consider whether there are limitations on the
kind of work that might be programmed. And if so, what and
why? Working the answers out to these questions before
inviting artists in so that both artists and the venues do
not experience organisational conflict whilst pursuing their
respective working roles
For artists, this could be beneficial so that they can receive the support needed to access a space and also feel comfortable inhabiting it. By creating more time and a steadier pace for the development of projects also means that the producers and programmers are looked after. This has the potential to free them up to support the artist and to understand the process of working with the artist (and vice versa). This will also give programmers time to keep other members of staff informed about what is needed from them/ what is happening. In addition to this, time and a steady pace allows the artists and venues to build the conditions that audiences need to fully engage with the performance and the artist’s work.
A
DIFFERENT
KIND
OF
VULNERABILITY
Another suggestion around the considerations related to the physical/ cultural construction of venues is the idea of exposing vulnerabilities. Reactive action to identity politics causes venues to bring people and works in to attempt to solve structural issues. It has been shown time and time again, this kind of reactive action often ends up covering up the issues instead of solving them; easy narratives of recuperation or catharsis ignore the impact of the broader structures of oppression. It may not be possible to fully mitigate violence of all kinds. As discussed in the Considerations Expanded video above, structural violence cannot be an individual’s responsibility and, as we are all complex beings with different sets of needs and experiences, what might be violent to one person may not be violent to another (watch discussion on audiences moving around spaces under Covid measures and how it might affect them differently). Ultimately this work is about all stakeholders (producer, curator, choreographer, dancer, audience etc) taking mutual responsibility for each other in negotiating a shared environment. The invitation then is about showing a different kind of vulnerability in order to build mutually beneficial and supportive relationships. For venues this could be communicating with artists about: •
What objects they have in their collections
•
How they are negotiating an increasingly
and the objects’ histories
partisan reaction to cultural and socio
political differences and the loaded
•
What the histories of their buildings are,
language which is often attached to this
who they are funded by etc.
(e.g. cancel culture in and between groups)
•
Their policies (for example where they are
•
Where a venue might have pitfalls in their
in their anti-racist work or what their
building and where things might not work
policies are around gender politics)
e.g. the building might be cold or a tap
might be leaky.
•
What their staffing structure is and who will
be supporting them (including what they
are responsible for in their job role). This
idea could even go as far to include what
the chain of support is (e.g. who is
supporting the artist and who is supporting
the staff members).
In short, this different kind of vulnerability from venues is about making sure the venue is giving a realistic portrayal of their building, structures and resources so that an artist can come in prepared, decline an invitation if it doesn’t work for them or be empowered to ask for reasonable adjustments. For artists, this is about asking ourselves how we can share this responsibility and give venues the knowledge to care for us. These ideas go hand in hand with the previous invitation about building in time and a steady working pace and are about starting on a transparent level to allow people to make informed choices from the onset of forming relationships.
PA S T O R A L
CARE
In terms of this notion of taking mutual responsibility for each other within our roles, for Slip Mould Slippery, I have also been developing a new pastoral care offer with dance artist, Temitope Ajose-Cutting. This is an attempt to redefine the way in which choreographers work with freelance dance artists, through an enhanced offer to support the well-being and needs of dancers both inside and outside the work. Our aim with this work is to challenge the common experience of a freelancer, where they are picked-up and dropped into, often, disparate processes with little, if any, through-line between the different projects. Additionally, these processes pay little regard to the dancer’s needs and experiences beyond the confines of the project. Hear Natifah talk about the pastoral care offer below!
We believe that this is, not only for the benefit and well-being of the dancers, but provides the performers with more support, allowing for flexibility and deeper work to occur. Key to this is tackling the very real sense of not having any stability or structure, especially as freelance artists. Having an experienced and empathetic practitioner, with whom the dancers can identify, who is specifically dedicated to that role and who is not the producer or choreographer, is paramount. There is also a sense of levellingout that comes with this way of working which opposes more traditional hierarchical choreographer-performer relationships. In the contexts we are working in, Temitope’s role is important to these negotiations as it would also supply an additional level of advocacy when working with venues, regardless of whether the work is commissioned by the venue or brought in. The invitation here then could also be to work with this role, drawing on the understanding and experience of the pastoral support mentor, to give venues an accessible framework for how to care for visiting practitioners.
AUDIENCE ACCESS
In relation to the audience’s journey through the space being affected by Covid safety measures (as detailed in the Considerations Expanded video), we suggest that this journey might be choreographed by the artist with support from the venue staff. This way, there is an extra sense of care for the audience and their experience journeying through the space does not feel solely imposed by Covid measures. This suggestion also might help to mitigate considerations around the different ‘contracts’ we enter into as audience and performers in a space where there might not be sign ups or ticketing. In some cases, such as more risk-taking work, or for example, work that contains nudity, the anonymity of audience members through lack of any form of sign up could prove problematic.
By allowing the dance artists to make decisions around choreographing the audience’s journey through space, the artists can make more informed decisions around access to their bodies and how they are being viewed. This also could be considered when working in digital spaces. The user’s journey into that digital space will be just as important. By allowing the artist to choreograph the audience’s journey, this also goes towards mitigating surprises or missed communications for the venue or the artists around the audience’s journey, arrivals, social distancing etc.
In terms of audience access there is also the consideration around the priorities for the upkeep of buildings. These ideas pertain to the audience’s physical access to the work. This might be that, due to lack of funds and buildings being vacant through the pandemic, certain facilities may no longer be available, may be in the process of repair or the venue may not have the resources to make repairs. Communicating what has been prioritised, in terms of repairs, with stakeholders before visitors enter the building would be beneficial to all parties. It establishes a sense of trust that safety procedures are being followed and potential issues have been made transparent. In addition to this, consideration might be given to the audience’s physical access to the work around the format that the work is presented. Would it be possible to offer both live and online work? This might provide the audience, artist and venue with a greater degree of choice in terms of access and safety. Could there be a fund set up for audience’s access (e.g. if an audience member is shielding but does not have access to WIFI could a fund be set up to allow them to do this for the time of the performance)? This might be a provision in a project’s funding if this is communicated from the start of the process.
I N F OR M AT I ON
SHEETS
In addition to the invitations and suggestions already made in the pack, which reflect work in practice and will potentially be subject to change, I am also offering here two downloadable Information Sheets; one for artists, the other for venues. These sheets include propositions for information that artists and venues might want to share with each other. They are meant as a basis for individualised conversations and communication, rather than replacements for these conversations, in order to start from a place of vulnerability and transparency. The Information Sheets aim to simplifying the sharing of information to avoid contrived care and/or unnecessary control and regulations for artists. As these ideas are evolving for us, they can also be developed by you to suit your individual relationships and experiences. They are not intended to be used to convey hard line rules for venues nor be seen as a one size fits all method to ‘solve’ institutional structural issues, or potential conflict between stakeholders. In place of the sheets, additional formats might be considered such as spoken or film (e.g. questions around the history of the building and where it is etc could be made into video form as these are unlikely to change and can be sent to all artists).
CLICK
TO
HERE
D OW NLOAD
INFO
SHEETS
CREDITS
Author: Grace Nicol Produced by: Treacle Holasz Collaborating artists: Alethia Antonia, Dorna Ashory, Iro Costello, Sinead O’Dywer, Florence Pearl, and Natifah White Designed by: Upright Fools Venue contributors via zoom meetings: Jim Hendley (Dance4), Joseph Kendra (National Gallery), Jacky Lansley (Dance Research Studio), Helen Lound (Dancexchange), Priyesh Mistry (National Gallery), Louise O’Kelly (Block Universe), Sara Sassanelli (ICA), Kostas Stasinopoulos (Serpentine), Nikki Tomlinson (Independent Dance) and Lauren Wright (Siobhan Davis Dance) Pastoral Support Mentor: Temitope Ajose Cutting Project Mentor: Jacky Lansley Design Assistant: Becky Smith This project has been made possible with support from Arts Council National Lottery Grants, Dance Research Studio, Centre 151, Dance4, Chisenhale Dance Space and Ugly Duck. Images by: Ottilie Landmark Film by: Daniel McKee Additional thanks to Greta Gauhe for sharing her invaluable insight and research.
