Our first assignment is to give general feedback on 29 Subversive Gestures as it was performed at Highways by Thursday, November 29.
Here is the video of "29 Subversive Gestures" (password "subversive"):
Here is the video of "29 Subversive Gestures" (password "subversive"):
As reference, here is Joe Goode's original "29 Effeminate Gestures." (Note: the piece starts around 6:12. We are actually working with a video of Joe Goode performing the solo, rather than the younger company member featured here.)
FEEDBACK QUESTIONS:
1. What parts of the piece draw you in; what parts feel superfluous?
2. What meaning do you read throughout the work?
3. What do you make of the chair? What meaning does it hold for you? Do you find it to be an effective prop?
4. Compare Goode's original work to ours. How do the differences between the embodied cultural traditions drawn upon, as well as the racialized and gendered identities of Joe Goode and Cynthia Ling Lee, cause the works to read and resonate differently? How do our compositional strategies replicate or depart from Goode's, and how might you imagine that Goode's compositional strategies could be appropriated or manipulated for our context?
FEEDBACK QUESTIONS
ReplyDeleteTried to watch the video with totally fresh eyes as if I don’t know what’s going to happen next or why something is happening.
1. What parts of the piece draw you in; what parts feel superfluous?
I was quite engaged all the way through but only really emotionally drawn in from the point that Cynthia first sits in the chair through the Kathak section and then again for the ending chair section. I found moments that were funny in other places, but mostly I felt myself in a very heady space trying to understand how I was supposed to react.
2. What meaning do you read throughout the work?
I definitely see someone grappling with traditional ideas of feminity both through Kathak and a western lens. I see a female-bodied person exploring other kinds of gendered identities and trying to be accepted on a human level by an authority in her life. I almost feel at the end she is apologizing for what she cannot be but hoping that she’ll be seen for who she really is. The final moment she’s in a constant dance of negotiation with the authority who doesn’t seem authoritative any more - perhaps just as confused themselves. I desire her to follow her own path by putting down the chair and walking away. I feel she needs to play the game where she can be a part of the rule making and not where she is always going to come out feeling not good enough.
3. What do you make of the chair? What meaning does it hold for you? Do you find it to be an effective prop?
In the beginning it seems like something she is exploring. But from the moment she bows to it until the end I see it as the authority figure. Sometimes it is more prominent and sometimes it recedes into the background and I forget about it, but every time it comes back I am reminded of its significance.
4. Compare Goode's original work to ours. How do the differences between the embodied cultural traditions drawn upon, as well as the racialized and gendered identities of Joe Goode and Cynthia Ling Lee, cause the works to read and resonate differently?
ReplyDeleteRacialized and gendered identitities:
In Joe Goode’s original piece where he is performing it himself, he is a large white male who easily embodies a gruff masculine identity. When he sheds it and does his first 29 effeminate gestures it is in such great contrast to his original persona that it is quite shocking to see that the same body can convincingly perform such extremes. When he adds the war sounds it is as if his new effeminate personality was appropriating the sounds as a tool, or also coming together as a hybrid. He also reads as a stereotypical drag queen without the drag.
Cynthia first appears like an Asian American female questioning gender roles. Then she dresses in a kathak outfit which suddenly references South Asia. Later she gets dressed in a boi outfit looking more male identified, but in a cute/young way. With Cynthia the points of gender, culture and racialized identity all intersect in unpredictable ways and it is as not as easy to just look at gender as it is for Joe Goode. There are multiple foci which may be a part of me feeling a bit scattered not knowing what to focus on.
How do our compositional strategies replicate or depart from Goode's, and how might you imagine that Goode's compositional strategies could be appropriated or manipulated for our context?
Strategies:
1. Same movement different sound:
Cynthia and I have already discussed the idea of sticking closer to his strategy of changing the sound score and keeping the gestures the same. I have been realizing that even though the words are the same each time in ours I only remember a few of them. Perhaps the gestures have more impact? Or perhaps because too many things are changing in our piece we need something to be more of a constant?
2. Gendered props:
There a are a couple of iconic props that he uses: the power saw (masculine) the tea cup (femimine) the drill (masculine with queer undertones). Perhaps there’s other objects we can explore other then the chair?
3. Costumes:
His masculinity gets peeled off to reveal the effeminacy underneath. Our costume changes are really costume changes. Perhaps the two are more closely linked as the same costume as his is? What would this do?
5. Other:
ReplyDeletePRETHOUGHTS:
I wrote this about my vision for the piece before watching:
I find myself increasingly interested in making “29 Subversive Gestures” speak to those of us who have imbibed some sense of low self esteem or self doubt and go through all of life, or more often phases of life thinking we are “not good enough.” Two of the female viewers (neither were South Asian) I talked to after seeing the first draft showed at HIghways really felt the piece spoke to their own experience and both found it empowering. I am interested both in the broader emotional engagement with audiences’ own experiences and the specificity of what many of us experience with the complicated politics of classical Indian dance. I don’t know if it’s possible to do both, but I’m interested in both and if I had to choose I would make it more general. Joe Goode’s “29 Effeminate Gestures” reveals and breaks gender expectations and homophobia that have been taught by mainstream culture. Similarly women (and increasingly men) take in ideas from the world around us at a young age, that we are not good enough …this is often a ploy of media and advertising to make us think we have to buy something to have a nicer complexion, a more desirable look etc.. Many of us internalize these feelings of inadequacy that contribute to a low sense of self worth.
Interesting. The oppressiveness of traditional gender roles for women is partially predicated on telling us that we are weak, need to be taken care of, need to look a certain way to please men/to be a "real" woman - so I certainly feel that examining gender, specifically, is an effective way to get at one of the reasons for low self esteem. For me the project would lose a lot of juice if we do not look at the politics of gender in Indian classical dance in favor of making it more "general" (and I have a feeling it would actually not become more general, but more American.) I would add that I see Joe Goode's piece as coming very specifically out of his positionality as a white male gay American (post)modern dancer, and do not think his work is any less culturally specific than ours.
DeleteNOTES:
ReplyDeleteI wrote these while watching…
Watching 29:
Music sounds sad, then picks up with addition of tabla. Still melancholy feeling, Woman’s entrance is hard to see how she is relating to clarinet player. She pays respect to tabla player then approaches chair. She’s curious, I feel she jumps into the gendered body exploration too quickly and I want her to sit neutral and say “she’s a good girl” before taking on the different types of girl. Funny gender play. Funny that she falls on floor. Mood change as she bows to chair, serious. Before she was trying it on for size? Now is authority figure and because of tabla player I think teacher. And she’s getting into Kathak outfit so I think very traditional teacher. She dances pretty Kathak: femimine, alluring, longing, heart break. It seems strange to me the appeasing section, takes a minute for my brain to make a switch and then I realize that she’s changed from talking to/about a lover to having some sort of dialogue with the teacher. By the time I realize it, she’s gone on to recite and this has a different feeling then. I’m not sure what to make of it. …is she rebelling from teacher or claiming/internalizing it? I’m not sure.
Not enough:
Realizing she’s breaking down the dance we saw before and telling us how she actually feels about it…I resonate with this feeling. Why does she repeat the word decorated? Seems unnecessary. I like the pining song but didn’t need to hear it spoken first. Goes from funny bollywood into all the submissive and sacrificing. This section seems uncomfortably funny/sad. Then I’m not sure why keeps going after that… I’m with it again on not Indian enough because I resonate with that line. Teasing the audience is funny but I feel like I’m catching up with them. Weird that it got funny then serious then funny again and now serious ending. Feel too sudden mood changes? But then I resonate with idea of not be authentic enough.
She’s very whiny all of a sudden while getting into wacky costume, I don’t know why. Sudden change into funny again. What does this funny wacky character have to do with the Kathak? I don’t recognize that the words are being repeated until the teacher section. Not graceful enough is funny! Hat is too little kid-like. And definitely recall earlier section on “not Indian enough. “
Such a sudden change to “good enough?” I think this rhythmic section seems like the character is trying to figure it out (am I good enough? Yes! No? I don’t know)…
I realize it is blending the two worlds of more butch and classical Indian femininity, but maybe slow progression away from Kathak would lead audience better instead of one extreme to the other and then a mix (though Joe good shows masculine, effeminate and then does the sound of one with the movement of the other. Perhaps he is dealing with such known iconic sounds and gestures that it is easier to follow, less for the audience to learn). Rhythm is satisfying but not sure why merging the butch and Kathak. I feel very serious watching it event though others are laughing.
Love the ending of pushing chair gently, but am not sure about the jail chair moment. The final moment leaves me sad. I feel the moment of negotiation continues. Will we ever feel good enough?
It feels like the kind of piece I need to think about for a while…to digest and mentally pull apart. It doesn’t lead me easily on any emotional trajectory but rather has me figuring it out from a heady space appreciating the complexity but a little lost.
1. What parts of the piece draw you in; what parts feel superfluous?
ReplyDeleteI was most drawn in during the opening chair section (until I starts to rock back and forth), emotionally at the very beginning of the “not enough kathak” section (this falls away when the tabla comes in), and generally whenever she teases and plays with the audience’s expectation. Movement-wise, I find the final mixed kathak/wacky section the most interesting. I’m pretty bored during the opening, when I walk around and greet the musicians. I also didn’t find the “classical” kathak section very engaging (perhaps for compositional reasons – the gestures and the rhythms don’t mesh for me, as the movement does not reflect the actual rhythmic structure in terms of patterns of phrases, etc).
2. What meaning do you read throughout the work?
Generally I get an impression of someone negotiating cultural traditions, gender roles, and authority. Gender does not seem to be at the forefront, but one of multiple issues being tackled. Sometimes the performer seems to be in her power (mostly for me when she teases the audience, which happens at scattered moments throughout the performance – this occurs as early as the opening chair section, when she acts seductive and then subverts their expectation by widening her legs and lowering her voice to a growl), sometimes she seems to question herself, sometimes she submits to the teacher. I don’t really get a sense that she has gone on a “journey,” but that she is constantly moving between various positions.
In the beginning, I’m dressed as a femme, but my body language doesn’t particularly embody femininity. Indian skirt, Asian, short hair. Sitting in the chair, I am in my power, enjoying the pleasure of embodying multiple genders and playing with the audience’s expectations, then questioning myself. I freak out and struggle with the chair. (This is confusing; I don’t know why I become hysterical when I was empowered a moment ago.)
Chair becomes guru. I get dressed, am familiar with the costume, am clearly not a beginner, confident. I dance a weird mish-mash of kathak-like gestures sourced from abhinaya to an amad in single and double speeds. Many of them evoke sringar (decorating oneself), some seem more submissive and devotional. The gestures do not add up to any kind of narrative and do not reflect the structure of the phrases in the rhythmic compositions. This is confusing, as it gives a classical “appearance” without being deeply or rigorously so. I look similarly inauthentic or “not quite right” with my short hair, lack of jewelry, and T-shirt. I give a more empowered presence when reciting than when silent.
In the next section, the performer reveals the meaning of the gestures, as well as (through her tone of voice) how she feels about embodying those gestures. In the beginning, she seems to be having a personal discovery, a moment of reflection, but this quickly shifts into “telling” the audience what things mean, often in an over-the-top or sarcastic way. She is off-key when she sings. I don’t believe her when she says “not graceful enough,” as she embodies grace too well. At the end of the section, she returns to the mode of realization/reflection for a moment.
ReplyDeleteIn the next section, the performer changes into clothing that mark her culturally as gender queer, urban, western(ized). She is boisterous and trained in modern dance. I notice that some of the verbal phrases repeat, but I am not entirely sure how this section relates to the kathak sections. Unless she is revealing this as her “true” identity (emphasized by the fact that her shorts were under her skirt)? (Note: choreographically and theoretically, I don’t really like the idea of there being an authentic or true self.) This section has the most range of vocalization by the performer. I find it weird that she addresses the chair/guru while wearing this outfit (esp the hat and shorts) and moving in this way. The two worlds seem too far apart to even be in the same space (and I would never dress like that while talking to my guru). At the end she becomes a revolutionary (fist in the air).
In the mixed up section, the combination of movement, music, costume, and the performer’s racial identities seem to make the most sense: all are equally hybrid. There is a quick-shifting between many different positionalities in ways that are satisfyingly hard to follow. I suddenly notice the “Indian-ness” of the vest, which I didn’t notice before (though perhaps adding one “feminine” element like a dupatta or necklace would be helpful to scramble up the gender associations of the costume as well). Performer’s vocalization could be explored and performatively improved much more.
At the moment when I stand up and walk around the chair, it ceases to be the guru. After awhile, it seems to transform into me. While the lighting makes the ending look a bit tragic, I actually read it as ambiguous: the see-saw movement could be an act of being forever trapped, of teetering/balancing between opposing worlds, between expectations and the self, between being good enough and not good enough – yet it could also be a form of play. My reading of the mood is highly determined by my tone of voice, which shifts but never sounds tragic to me.
I was surprised to find that there was less accumulation of meaning than I expected. I thought that the words and gestures would take on multiple powerful meanings, but I found that as a viewer remembered very few actual phrases and movements, except “not good enough.” Instead it felt like a constantly shifting smorgasboard that had some repetition.
3. What do you make of the chair? What meaning does it hold for you? Do you find it to be an effective prop?
ReplyDeleteThe chair seems to be the teacher (when I do pranam) and then, at the very end of the piece, to be me. In the beginning when I’m sitting in it, it simply seems to be a prop that allows me to embody different socialized gendered sitting positions. I have no idea what the chair means when I start to rock back and forth, struggle, run and turn in a circle.
I don’t find the chair as effective during the bulk of the “dance” sections of the piece, when I am mostly doing my own thing, but reference it occasionally. It seems to lose its charge as a prop. My preference would be to make the chair central throughout the work, or to consider not using it.
4. Compare Goode's original work to ours.
Will answer this during next assignment.
5. I have one major performative question: when should the performer be ironic, and when should she be sincere? She seems to be in humorous/ironic mode a lot. I feel that perhaps it would be different live, but when watching the video the sarcasm often did not draw me in emotionally.
My feedback- written prior to the feedback questions:
ReplyDeletewondering about placement of the two musicians on opposite end of stage, with empty chair in center center
Unclear about the connection of Cyn walking in, looking at the musicians (kind of in „wonder“), seems sort of unsure, hesitant. Then starting to talk. Mood shift is when she says :“Is a good girl“ (the preceeding „she...“ is still hesitant.
Part on chair (“good girl” variations) are very engaging. They have a clarity and are at the same time surprising.
Less clear is the part where Cyn moves around holding the chair under her butt.... especially in combination with the “screaming” and kind of going out of control.
Not sure about relationship to chair?
The final pose of that section (chair under butt) makes sense to me and is very strong (also the way the music come in and when Cyn starts changing into ghagra....
and then the way the chair becomes authoritative- standing in for the guru
classical kathak section works for me after that. I like the way it sets up the gestures/meanings that are subverted/questioned/dealt with later
question about the classical bit: is it based on an actual song- or did you compile it from various ? Cause if it is, say a ghazal, it may be nice to have it sung.... to have another use of text and voice in there....
the moment of change to „not enough“ is a pause- seems like an „awakening“.... somehow I feel its missing something
The not enough section works for me, especially in the interplay with the tabla.....
somehow the changes in tempi are not so clear to me: the „not made up anough“ part seems too hectic
the sense of humor and the different interpretations of the „not enoughs“ are varied and satisfying
I don't connect to „not submissive enough“ (the shaking)
I like the way abhinaya is used differently (with humor)
the „not good enough“ seems to get swallowed in the change of clothes.... maybe it can precede?
I get lost in the part of the “not enough” section where Cyn does half turns around herself-- back and forth, before falling to her knees center stage (if it is supposed to be going out of control, then there is not enough build)
the over the top “strong” gestures in opposition to “not weak enough” may counteract the “subversiveness” cause of being over the top
same for “graceful”-- not sure if material from mixed bag works here
I like it the “not enough” part with Taal
I guess I am not clear about the relationship to the chair (except in teacher moment)- thats why I cannot easily connect to beginning and ending