Emovere: Analytical Perspective
When I was invited to participate in the project Emovere as a “theorist”, I initially thought that my role was to observe the development of the creation in order to provide some reflections that, based on an analysis of its various phases and their results, could generate some conclusions regarding the particularity of the artistic material that would emerge as the project unfolded. That is, I imagined myself as an eye witness of the creation process, recording it in writing and applying certain aesthetic analysis tools that could account for the compositional route adopted in accordance with the final objective, i.e., creating a piece. However, once the scheduled work had begun and after attending the rehearsals from time to time – sometimes regularly and sometimes not so much, – I realized that, in addition to putting certain aesthetic conclusions about the developing stage substance into words, my role consisted in revealing an invisible materiality that emerged from the interaction between Javier, Francisca, Matías, Eduardo, Poly, Pablo, Esteban and Sergio1, which was expressed in a visual, sonic and choreographic way. In that sense, my efforts entailed externalizing a point of view which, apart from the contingency of what they were building together, could show them a worded photography of what was being projected on stage, outlining a synthesis of the resulting aesthetic material that synchronically integrated the visualization of what happens a little earlier. In other words, regarding the very moment in which the relationship between the performers and creators arises from sound and movement, a material that logically came diachronically in my spectator eyes and ears.
In order to understand this, it is important to reveal the particular situation of this creative process, in which the composition procedures are also conditioned by technical limitations that can only be detected in the stage practice. These limitations leave little room for innovation because their appearance (of the technical limitations) always depends on the action of the sound or choreographic counterparty that the creators and performers are producing. This means that the creative decisions that define the interaction between sound and movement in this process not only search for the most adequate “alchemy” in order to achieve the construction of a language that can express an aesthetic sense, but at the same time, they must adjust to the complexity entailed by the fact that the sound emerges thanks to the signals emitted by the body, which are continuously limited by unpredictable situations derived from particular body features of the performers, such as the amount of perspiration, how heart palpitations behave, the room temperature at each instant and even their state of mind. All these variables condition the receptive capacity of the sensor and how it captures (or not) the signals of the body so they can be transformed into sound according to previously established sound objects that do and do not adjust to these signals depending on the moment of the interaction. This way, Emovere resides between the artistic creation and the laboratory research because the freedom of the creator is profoundly regulated by a technical limitation that arises from the empirical practice of any creative proposal. Thus, the active spectator we have called “the theorist” in this piece must not only account for an analysis of the choreographic and sound language that emerges, but must also look closely at the contingency of the relationship between the performers and the creators at the very moment when they are putting into practice the creative assumptions that are tested in the time-span of the rehearsal, as these might be very well justified by the construction of this language, even if they don’t necessarily adapt to the performer and the moment of the execution.
The final piece of Emovere that was performed at GAM allows us to “look through” the exposure of the performers to see part of the piece’s complex construction process. As spectators, we watch them move like in any dance performance, while also showing us part of their voice, their thoughts and how the expression of certain emotions is translated differently by each one. So as spectators, we are uncertain of whether we are really witnessing an outburst of laughter or the mere sound imitation of it with an aesthetic structural purpose. In this indecision, we must “look closely” because, being unaware of our own perspiration or a variation in the rhythm of our heart, we are intervened in a way that confuses our appreciation, altering our position and, in some way, turning us into performers in the shared corporal feeling of certain emotions.
AIn conclusion, we can define the role of the so-called “theorist” as fundamental for the construction of a sound choreography like this one, as long as he/she is incorporated as one additional character in this complex creative framework, submitting a perspective that allows understanding how the relationship between the creators, the performers and the piece unravels because it is precisely in the physiognomy of this encounter where the structural decisions, and therefore the particularity of the language, are defined.