When visual art and dance intersect new meaning is created as the individual piece not only stands on its own, but stands as inspiration for a new creation. I think that the work being done from the Andy Gambrell performances helped bring new conversation. Particularly in the first performance in the Wriston auditorium, with the movements of representation of the bumpy surface painted in the background, there was five rolls of the paint on that background surface and that created a sort of base for the rhythm, then with the laser eye tracker movements being brought in there was a main focus of interest and directionality in the movements. I found it difficult to follow their dance moves and connect those with tracking my eye across the painting. But it was enjoyable and the conversation that came after, about the process, reminded me of readings we had with the focus being on the process of creation and how that’s so important.
I think there definitely could be parallels drawn between the performances of the paintings and Yvonne Rainer's minimalistic dances, one thing I noticed in the main dances was that lack of repetition when you focused on the laser eye dancers, there was sharp movements in specific directions (all going on with separate dancers at the same time) so it was difficult to find repetition with in that which helped make it very visually interesting despite the similar movements.
The concept of having places integrated with art and movement is more powerful with context and I think that's where something like an artist statement, Q and A ,speech or title helps. Especially something more abstract like Gambrell's work.
For my project it got me thinking of doing something with having a background video playing a computer that connects to a bigger piece to help give it meaning, serving as a sort of “dance”.
Comments
Post a Comment