Advertisement
Advertisement
-
THANK YOU.
Wow, this is seriously the best performance piece I've seen in a long time. Simple and clear but deeply integritous and engaging. A perfect example of how CI can directly used as a choreographic tool. A broad topic like this could have all too easily been done trvially, but the performers gave it depth - I think because they were emotionally driven but not emotionaly attached (which goes along with the symbiosis message, and, again, their integrity and performance abilities). They also, as CI often does, could have come across as "look what I can do" but they successfully did not come across that way in their performance making whether their intentions were there or not, consciously or unconsciously, irrevelant.
Reminded me greatly of the "Statue" pas de deux in many of the Cirque to Soleil pieces with its raw earth-human quality.
Anyway, thanks for letting me share my response, but it renewed in me, as I've unfortunately had to be away from performance art and, in fact, other artists, for awhile, what I do art for and that great art is being done and I want to, too! Also reminded me of Pilobolus, as I had forgotten about them.
yummy yummy, thanks again for sharing this with us!
love lynn -
-
I think it is important to distinguish Ci and choreography based on partnering. The first one is improvisational in nature, and the other one is made with an intention to repeat a certain progression of movements. As Pilobulos members stated many times, their exploration of physical contact and choreography emerged at the same time as Paxton was doing his own research. Again, as it was said by originators of Pilobulos their style has nothing to do with CI and they do not use the same principles. Therefore I don't think it is appropriate to say that CI was used here as a choreographic tool. And yes, the ideas similar to CI were used.
-