Futurism shedding more light on the debate...

Today we continued our research into the Futurist movement by attending Brian Eno's installation "Presentism" at the Palazzo Ruspoli, Rome. The program for this was very well written and I'll try to find a copy online as its explanations of Futurism were very articulate - here's a bit:

"the con-fusion between man and machine prophesised by the futurists led to the con-fusion between tradition and digital technology. Marinettie, who wanted to provide a soul not just to the crowds, but also to the industrial yards, to the trains, the transatlantics, the cars and the planes, entrusted the music to express the domain of the machines and the victory of electricity. We have to admit that the prophecy of the mechanic man has been completed: the man is not only 'composed' by objects realized by the technology and transplanted in his body, but he also uses machines as real prosthesis of himself; the computers and any other type of machine able to process informations are prosthesis of our mind, extension of our mental possibilties."

The installation greatly reminded me of the novel or phisolophical essay by Henri Bergson: Creative Evolution. Bergson explained human change by comparing essentially two metaphors: (1) watching a life through photo or film frames v. (2) seeing a life as a snowball that continues to roll down a hill - collecting ever more snow, etc. and subtly changing (but not removing) any parts of itself. I.e. westerner's attempt to force everything into concrete parts, moments in time, etc. v. an organic evolution. The installation, whether intentionally or not, really played with these two ideas. If you were focused on a tiny part of it and eventually changed your focus you might notice a change, but depending on memory, couldn't be sure. If you didn't notice a change, it was dramatic in most cases (i.e. a completely different color or design). However, if you simply took the entire video installation in, you could go for quite awhile without realizing that the installation as a whole or its parts had evolved. This is difficult to explain, but it was a brilliant use of timing and organic evolution.

Getting back the discussion of needing both creative / technical impulse coupled with financial support... I have yet to find a place where both are in equal or great enough amounts. (I sincerely doubt, though I do not know for sure, that the Futurist movement relied upon major funding.)

In Austria, what we discovered was that artists (dance-artists specifically) were expected to create whatever they wanted to, thus giving a sense - more so than in the states, i would say - that there was freedom in the arts. That said, their funding to do this work is based on the whim of a group of politicians. If funding is cut or moved to a different form of expression, that art is fully cut. (By funding, I mean a lot -- I just received an email for a new grant in San Francisco that will provide, if awarded, $250 per artist with an operating budget under $250,000.00! so ridiculous.. though it's better than $0) During the conference we attended, the Choreographic Platform Austria, someone finally asked the panel "Why are there only solos?" (as almost every piece in the festival was a solo)...to which an artist on the panel replied essentially that there were only solos because that was all that was funded by the Platform. There was no artistic reason and in fact most of the artists typically worked with groups. I couldn't help but wondering or comparing the merits of such a response versus the dedication of our dancers and collaborators to go on tour for 5 weeks without pay (versus 1.5 hrs from their home base for a weekend). Dedication to a vision and somehow making it happen v. a job. Or, in the case of much of what we're seeing in Italy - doing great artistic work, but doing so with forced content by a patron. In fact, I read recently that Michelangelo's family considered him no more than a blue-collared worker - a basket weaver in contemporary terms.

I don't know what the answer or ideal situation is. I found myself getting into conversations with Europeans about the fact that I only rehearse 3 hrs a week. The typical response was complete shock and "you cannot possibly make work with only 3 hrs of rehearsal per week!!". To which I'd defensively reply that I had to due to rental costs and competition for space and then I'd rationalize it by saying I used an intuitive method to choreograph. This is BS. I might work intuitively in practice to a degree, but never before have I said that. I use complex spatial designs, complex rhtymic sturctures and my work is conceptionally rooted in the struggle to determine which technologies are good extensions of human capabilities and which (i.e. facebook) limit our human abilities and interactions. However, I now realize, having had time away from the studio, away from the pressures of producing new works constantly, and having finally had time to reflect and think that I really have had NO time to reflect and think about what I'm doing or why I'm doing it for the past 5 years. Alas.. the debate over money v. creative necessity continues.