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.

REBALANCING AND RE-ORIENTATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BODY AND OBJECT

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 and the objects’ histories

• What the histories of their buildings are, who they are funded by etc.

• Their policies (for example where they are in their anti-racist work or what their policies are around gender politics)

• 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). • How they are negotiating an increasingly partisan reaction to cultural and socio political differences and the loaded language which is often attached to this (e.g. cancel culture in and between groups)

• Where a venue might have pitfalls in their building and where things might not work e.g. the building might be cold or a tap might be leaky.

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.

PASTORAL 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.