The following review is courtesy of Gulgun Kayim, Co-Artistic Director of Skewed Visions
As with many performances seriously engaging with the dynamics of space and architecture Daylight (for Minneapolis) by Sarah Michelson is a work reliant as much on the unique experience and autonomy of the viewer as on the manipulated events created by the artist. What meaning is eventually extracted from the piece depends as much on the mood, disposition, circumstances and attitudes of the spectator as the expectations of the creator. When my husband asked me after the show if I liked the performance I honestly answered 'like is not a relevant term for this experience'. The experience of Daylight is so individualized, depending on so many factors that I'm betting no two viewings of this work will ever be alike.
Daylight is very much a work that challenges audiences to become aware of their environment and how it is manipulated by various forces, artistic and administrative. Michelson's manipulation of concepts of space and performance extends out to embrace the entire Walker to include, not just the architecture of the building, but also the people who inhabit its walls, who design, commission, curate and make decisions about the program. Daylight it seems to me, asks that we consider everything within the charged space of the Walker as an act of creation and performance including the indiviual’s presence as spectator.
My experience of the work began across the street as I approached the building from the Vineland place entrance. Looking through the glass panel doors from a distance I could see large images of senior performance curator, Phillip Bither. As I got closer to the doors, four large monochromatic portraits became apparent, arranged in a corner in proximity to the familiar self-portrait of Chuck Close. In among the portraits a male dancer (looking from behind, very much like Phillip) faced a corner, alternately standing or reflexively jerking, leaning and pulsating to the music played overhead. My progress took me through the building along the long glass corridor where dancers were arranged in intervals against the glass wall. They were positioned to look away -heads and bodies inclined from the building's interior -out, onto the side walk towards the cars and passers by, their postures suggestive of melancholy and contemplation, alternately moving similar to the dancer in the entryway.
From the ticket desk, I went up towards the theatre encountering tableaus of dancers arranged outside the glass walls. The two I saw featured a standing figure dressed in dark shorts and shirt wearing an eerie smiling, monochrome Mickey Mouse head. This figure faced in staring at the gallery of spectators disregarding the two dancers laying at his/her feet, bodies splayed in the grass. The images though passive seemed perverse, mingling references to Disney, with suggestions of Americana, anesthetized images of cruelty, suburbia, and the arbitrary violence of civilized people.
Making my way into the theatre the performance continued as I was led into the McGuire Theatre and invited to sit in raked risers positioned on stage facing the back wall of the performance space. Like the booth and lobby area this space also featured large monochrome portraits (this time of the dancers) propped against the back wall. Looking around I could see people already seated in the balconies, watching my entry. It was here that I became aware I was as much a performer in this event as a spectator. No one sat in the main floor audience seating, although it’s now clear to me that if I had chosen to do this, I would have been allowed.
The next phase of the performance began abruptly. The house lights were snapped off and four dancers entered and initiated, what traditionally would have been the start of a dance performance. The dancers moved sharply flaying in the very thin space left available to them on stage between the audience and the back wall. Sitting in the very last row of seating I became aware, as did those around me, that in fact the performance was not only in front of us, it was around us. Behind us on the stage, above us in the balconies, lights came on dancers appeared, heads bobbed up and down as audience members tried (sometimes in vain) to view both sides of the stage and auditorium.
The dancers in front of us were ignored as I began to watch the choreography of bobbing heads. Sometimes my view was blocked for minutes as the people in front and lower down tried to see what was going on. As the performance continued the agitation and animation of the spectators increased, as did their attempts to watch. Then the end came. Or so we thought. The house lights 'signaled' end and we clapped, unsure of ourselves and began to uncertainly and slowly trickle out of the space only to be stopped by another dancer who appeared and danced on stage in the dark. When her performance finished she exited and some audience members clapped as an after thought. That was definitely the end; though I continued to sit in my seat and watch those around me quietly file out.
While it was clear to me that ideas of space and spectatorship were being played with in the main building, I was even more impressed by how cleverly Michelson had destabilized audience expectations inside the theatre space. In this work we are challenged to question what a dance performance is supposed to be. Michelson very simply dismantled the elements of performance by repositioning the audience’s relationship to the stage and removing the normal modes of experience, particulary our ability to fully see. In so doing she revealed our dependence on the conventions of performance in order to understand it. We were forced to make decisions; to choose to experience the 'dance', or ask ourselves was the dance us? Were we the spectators and performers of this event? As I finally left the space I overheard a woman asking uncertainly, "is this the end? "No, intermission" said her companion, "this is where there would usually be an intermission".
In a broader sense, through this work Michelson examines human relationships and their impact on the world -the relationship between architect and environment, between audience and performer, between artist and curator. As an artist whose work is concerned with spatial and human relationships I was particularly interested in and appreciative of this work and the foresight of curator Phillip Bither to commission a work that engages and challenges all the dynamics that constitute the new Walker.
Gulgun–Thanks for staying up late to get your thoughts down. It kills me, as a balcony performer, to hear the raves of those in the balconies and the frustrated appreciation of everyone else forced to partial viewing. Pre-show was available to all– even so I knew there was anxiety about how to get certain seats if people were at all aware of Sarah’s set up. More importantly, very few people (only 8 out of 10 at our table at 20.21 afterwards) were even aware of the last act out on the terrace roof where all the dancers assembled and Sarah & Co. sang/performed a rock version of “Money is Better than Love.” !! I understand the disruption intended and think your description excellent. I wish you could now see it from above where you see the confusion of the spectators from a distance– comfortable enough to sink into it and ‘get it’ in your body instead of being forced to get it conceptually. As my son -in-law, who loved the music said, it was like melting into a chair at a club and watching the evening go on and on.
~Nor
P.S. Mickey Mouse (who was one of our Ladies group) fainted last night right in the middle of the scene with the ‘dead’ girls. Then she got to her knees, rose again and walked slowly off. Amazing performance– but then again, she’s a competitive roller skate dancer in ‘real life’.
Comment by Nor — 9/16/2005 @ 1:24 pm
Or at least challenges audiences to see who can climb the fastest, see the farthest, crane the neckiest, know the most, accept the least…
The audience’s competition to appreciate, and the dispersal of knowledge about the work, certainly provoked some questions for me, many of which had to do with the substitution of one systematizing order (the structuring of familiar performance conventions) with another (the structuring of authorized and authorizing knowledge). What is challenged here among these audiences, these spaces, this ordering of discourse, for these prices? What made this possible?
Comment by Charles — 9/18/2005 @ 10:09 pm
nor, if you ever read this. the dancers (from perpich, at least) want to tell all you ladies that you are a huge inspiration to us. we want to be totally awesome just like you when we grow up. you guys rocked that dance.
–perpich
Comment by andrea — 9/20/2005 @ 7:55 am
The emperor has no clothes!
Thanks Gulgun for sharing your experience. I’d like to start with your idea that “like is not a relevant term for this experience”. ‘Like’, though it is as manufactured an idea as any, points to bodily experience. With any experience we can ask of one another; “Did you like the experience?” “Did you enjoy it?” We can answer yes, no, I don’t know, or do as you have done and say Mu (a term from Zen that says that the question is meaningless). Personally I did not like the concert.
I read the things you read. Michelson challenges us to consider a space, its history, the various social/professional forces that bring it into being. We can enjoy briefly the geometries of her dance that collide with geometries of the architecture. These things can be read in 5 minutes and then what? Here I am. Sitting. Sitting for an hour as the same message is being repeated. Sitting is a fine experience. But I could have been sitting in any public space watching people move through an environment. What is special about this experience? Why pay money for it? The capitalist trajectory of this experience has to be considered as well. We did pay money. We exchanged a bit of our lives in the form of currency in hopes of reciprocation, that in giving money that took X hrs of my labor to earn, my life may be enriched in some way, that I may, at some point be able to say “I liked this work” or “I received something in exchange for my time and money”. I read what you read but I need help at this point. What is necessary about representing these trajectories? I suppose it is a kind of training ground for the critical theorist who can then practice recognizing the contingencies in which we all live. I suppose that this can be pleasing in the way that a puzzle is pleasing. But without some craft, some magic, some reason to care, I am left cold. When I go to a concert I want to leave with some wonder, instead of so much wandering.
I could go on and on. I’ve as much hot air as the next gal.
Some other issues:
The issue that many people in the audience have no experience reading work like this, were baffled and may never return.
The issue that there were some in the audience, “the in-crowd”, who looked on thoughtfully and read the trajectories and patted themselves on the back for being so sophisticated, while others were baffled, left in the middle of the performance etc.
Not that we need to be populist. I’m just saying aren’t we back to ballet here? There are those that know the steps (in this case the intellectual steps) to do and those that do not. Is there more to this than making some people feel sophisticated at the expense of others?
Thank you for your article. I think this forum is great and I did enjoy all this thinking. So I guess I got something from the performance after all. But I wouldn’t go again. I think we should not avoid the question of ‘like’. We all live in our bodies and, no matter what verbal codes we are spinning, it is all just spinning, unless it is grounded again in our lived experienced.
Thanks
MO
Comment by MO — 9/20/2005 @ 12:19 pm
Merhaba Gulgun Hanim.
Ben Gulgun tesedufen computurde sizi buldum kendimle ilgili sayfayi okurken . bende sanatciyim Ressamim vaktiniz olursa web sayfama bakin umarim gorusmek uzere, bnde Minneapoliste oturuyorum .web side artofgigi.com
Sevgiler.
Gulgun Turker.
763-3773561
Comment by Gulgun Turker — 7/8/2006 @ 2:22 pm