I'm preparing the framing ritual, scheduled for June 9th, and here are some references that inspired me.
firstly, a list of devices (=mechanisms with a purpose) that we can find in video and happening, and theories of how video creates subjectivity/separation° and happening creates objectivity/community°.
the devices of video
central perspective -- this device has emerged in Europe around the same time as the witch-hunts (in renaissance). it implies a spectator/reader in a central position outside of the artwork, so that the artwork can be considered 'closed', or separate from the processes of life. I liken this device to the emergence of maps that lack the modes of transportation, to the closed form of statues, and to the forms of poems and fables that emerged in the same age. the closed form of an artwork implies that it has an end, at which it resolves itself, suspending the energy that would otherwise leak into real life. according to Göttner-Abendroth's 'principles of a matriatchial aesthetic'°, this is one basic device of patriarchal 'domestication of the muses'. we can also relate the device of the central spectator to the modern hierarchy created between people ('men'), animals, plants and minerals that became hegemonial in the renaissance, and to the image of a homonunculus in a glass bottle who visually observes the world around him.
mirror -- this device is found in narratives and as a visual device of film language, and it corresponds to the nasty ideology of identity. there are lots of theories around this device, but I forgot most of that, and I just love mirrors in images, especially if they are a bit wobbly and darkish.
frame -- a device that allows the spectator to non-commit. the frames can include screens, focal lengths, sutures and body representations. A frame makes a process recognizable as an artwork, and separate it from life.
central perspective, mirror and frame are not exclusive to video, but are found within any art form in patriarchy. I am addressing film theories because that is what I read a lot about, and because video is a medium that is very close to my body.
the devices of a ritual (modern name: happening)
rhythmic interaction -- we share and respond to our body rhythms and our individual characters. through introspection, movement and listening, we become aware of our inner rhythm, our interface rhythm, and the environment's rhythm. a body rhythm needs no outer intention; instead, we'll focus on our individual points of fire and will, and derive a 'dynamic proper' from them that likens us to machines, falling/rolling things, and animals. the memory of rhythms creates objective° time awareness.
interaction in layers -- the notion of layers is a device to structure inner body, contact, and outer space in a coherent system so we can create a flow between them. the activity of realizing these layers as transcending structures creates objective° space awareness.
gestures and body painting within the ritual -- we will learn a sign language that conveys our situation: precarious, open, wealthy or closed. we can communicate and thus create a collective body -- a pre-social body, without a unifying duty, but with the possibility of solidarity, affinity, ignorance and separation. as we perceive these interactions, within the ritual, we form a shared awareness of entropy.
clash of video and ritual
the camera, and material representations of frame and mirror, will be positioned on a spot in the studio. there will be an inside of the videospace, and an 'off-screen'. we can leverage the apparatus by simply jumping into the frame. see the inspiring video 'film de cadres' from Philip Decoufle if you haven't already, for ideas on how to match and confront the established film language with a ritual and play.
during the ritual, we are aware of the additional frame that the apparatus produces: the video projections for future audiences. this frame is shaped by preconceptions from the history of audiovision; and the apparatus will translate gestures, layers and rhythms into utterances within a new film language. future rituals will be inspired by this resulting language, and similarly our own language is inspired by performances that we saw on video.
all the theories may make us afraid that patriarchal ideology is recouperating our energies and hopes in any medium, but in reality, often we find liberating practicing just by tryout.
dance is that amazing ritual with magic powers; everyone can participate, and will gain the greatest of pleasures, solidarity, grounding and stamina for the struggle against patriarchy -- right, we know this already :-)
°references: Judith took the photo seen above. Irena had the original idea of a new sign language that communicates precariousness and affinities. I love the idea to create a language of care and solidarity instead of the current language of competition and definition, and to use sign language instead of words. The notion of layers is probably just a shadow of the chakra theory that I was too lazy to familiarize myself with. But in any case, I try to ask my body about these things, and to stay with my gut feelings. For the theory, I draw from blurry memories of texts I read during my university years, and from texts I read recently: Johanna gave me Heide Göttner-Abendroth's book about matriarchal aesthetics and feminist analysis of european art history; Adorno's 'aesthetic theory' in search of heterotopies in poetry and Baudry's apparatus theory on the ideological implications of a camera and their material conditions have given me the terms of subjectivity, objectivity, apparatus, spectator, ideology and probably many more.