The Checklist

For a while now I have been rabbiting on about this Vorticism thing.  I reckon, like me, most of you were completely bewildered by what it was or how it is different to other isms and how it can be applied to performance making.  In a recent post I mentioned a short play I have written with my amazingly supportive workshop team.  Well, as a result, we have tried to distill the essences of Vorticism and below I am pleased to display our extractions so far.  Please note these are random quotes and observations from a range of sources and our own trials and errors.

VORTICISM CHECKLIST FOR PERFORMANCE MAKING

Vorticism = Expressionism + Neo-Cubism + Imagism

VIOLENT

Sharply defined geometric patterns. Conflicting forms locked together by intersecting lines and planes. Juxtaposed concrete instances to express an abstraction.  Starting from opposite statements of a chosen ‘thing’.  Discharged from both sides.  Reversed currents, friction.  Fighting from both sides for neither side.

CRITICAL

Criticism rather than creation.  Uninhibited attack.  Humour is used for ridicule.  Expressing the unpopular.

DIRECT

Treatment of the ‘thing’ with no sub-issues.  Isolation of a single image to reveal its essence through the use of luminous details.  Intensity maintained through focus and avoidance of secondary applications.

STARK

Use of nothing that does not contribute to the presentation.  Clear, clean - no blurring.  Clarity of definition.  Strong contours, sculptural solidity. Economy of language.  An adolescent clearness between two extremes. Narrow passages.  The image itself is the ‘thing’, and it is not ornamental.

IRREGULARITY

Not in sequence of a metronome.  No external limitations.  The form must be elastic enough to take the necessary material to avoid excluding something because it doesn’t ‘fit’.  Willingness to experiment with form. Synthesizing multiple perspectives into a single image.  An arrangement of colours and lines.  Certain forms are more expressive than others and therefore the most expressive form must be used. Use of all axes of space, not just one or two dimensions.  The organisation of form is energetic and creative, rather than imitative.

INTENSITY

The subject must inhabit the artist in the most intense way before it can be rendered into art. Concern with the relative intensity.  The vortex is the point of maximum energy.  It is a great silent place where all the energy is concentrated.  Exhilaration.  The moment that has not yet spent itself in expression.  The image is a radiant node or cluster.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL

Recording the precise instant when the ‘thing’ transforms itself from objective into subjective.   The most highly energised moment, the moment that has not yet spent itself. Depicting the subjective emotions and responses that are aroused.  The moment of spiritual awakening and suffering.  Man as a plastic substance receiving the impression.  The intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time.

REAL

The ‘thing’ is the vortex from which, and through which, and into which, ideas are constantly rushing - it is not an idea itself.  The proper and perfect symbol is the natural object. What the ‘thing’ IS, not what it is LIKE.  It is the primary expression of the subject avoiding mimicry.

REACTIVE

Interpreting the rapidly changing character of the modern world.  It is the moment when independent elements intersect in an unexpected way – they suddenly act on each other. The moment man directs a fluid force against circumstance – conceiving rather than reflecting or observing. Drive.  Inclusive of personality.

TECHNOLOGICAL

Art filled with modern technical advancements of civic engineering describing the vastness and manufacturing of the world.  Cool, clear cut consciousness of the impersonal harshness of the modern world.  The use of the most expressive form and technology for the subject.

INVESTIGATIVE

360 degree view. Subject is broken up and reassembled in an abstracted form.  A multitude of viewpoints to represent a greater context.

HISTORICAL

Comparison must be intelligent and not confined culturally.  All experience rushes into the votex – race, race memory, and instinct charging the placid future.  All the past that is vital  and is capable of living into the future is in the vortex now and will design the non-energised future.  The energy is that of tradition, of centuries of race consciousness, of agreement and of association.  It draws strength from it’s peripheries.  The past is connected to the future.  Past glories are respected.

The Heirarchy of Ego

I am constantly amazed by the attitude of actors to the role of directors.  Especially those views that seem to stem from the British actors.

I should probably explain the lead up to this comment by explaining my activities of the day.  Today I attended the season 2 launch for Metanoia.  It looks like it will be an exciting season with a very eclectic mix of events.  I was pleasantly surprised that the Metanoia production will include Sartre's 'No Exit'.  I love that play and it definitely fits their style so it should be good.  I am not so sure it will be innovative.  There work so far has been 'actor purist'.  I think by that I mean honest but dull.

Anyway, I got to talking to Lesley after the launch presentation and we got to talking about Mamet, because the Sartre will be double billed with a Mamet.  It took us on to discussing 'Glengarry Glen Ross' which is a show I directed a couple of years ago, and which the MTC is presenting from next week.  I am attending opening night next week and I mentioned that I will be interested to see what they would do with it, and was hoping they wouldn't just be producing the movie.

That got Lesley talking about how the director doesn't have to do anything with it.  Just give the script to the actors and let it go.  I pointed out that the problem is that the actor doesn't have the benefit of the outside eye, which led Lesley to say that the director should really just be designing the space and should leave the actors alone.  He said this I what happens in England and that he hates how in Australia the director is always telling the actors what to do.  I commented that I had read 'In The Company of Actors' and had got the distinct impression that there is a general cultural contempt for directors by actors in the UK,

I suggested that perhaps if in Australia we didn't have an almost exclusive career track into directing from acting that perhaps directors would focus more on staging and give the actors more space.  Lesley didn't seem to like that so much, and insisted it should still be actors directing, but actors with visual and spatial understanding.  It makes me wonder if now he is saying that actors are supposed to own not only their domain, and the domain of directors, but now also the domain of design.  Greedy little blighters they are!

Anyway, then the discussion moved on to the idea that Australian theatre is transported from England and Europe so we should do it the way they do it.  I pointed out that in the migration the priorities and modern histories change so the methods change.  I used government as an example and he did seem to accept that.  I also pointed out that the need for the outside eye of the director would also depend on the style of the production - for example, it might be more actor driven if it is a Chekhov, but would need the director's eye if it is a Brecht.

Well, that got him going.  He then went on to say that everything Brecht wrote was just watching what Peter Lorrie was doing.  I got excited at this point because I have just finished reading the writings of Brecht, and so I agreed although I thought it was the ensemble work of the Schifferdam Ensemble, so it was Lorrie and Weigel and the others, with Brecht writing and dramaturging rather than directing.  The conversation went downhill from there.  Lesley began with the authority of having spoken directly to someone who knew Peter but when I brought up the name Weigel and the Schifferdam Ensemble he didn't seem to be able to speak to any of it.  So then I suggested that in a way it was ensemble work like Forced Entertainment...

At that point the conversation was ended because he had to leave.

In the end though, I just felt so disappointed with this attitude from actors about direction.  I don't understand how they don't understand that they are one part of what is an integrated art form.  You don't get this attitude from dancers, or singers, or musicians.  They all know you need choreographers, conductors, etc.  Why do actors have so much resistance to this?  I always wonder if it is because it is the performance art form which generally requires the least personal and technical discipline.  They don't need the discipline to apply their craft, so they have too much time and energy to think about other things....

I should clarify that I don't mean they shouldn't BE disciplined, or that the discipline doesn't exist.  What I mean is that their is not the same level of audience expectation.  The demands of perfection demanded by audiences from singers and dancers is phenomenal and people will pay for that perfection.  I think actors resent the fact that in theatre what the audience pay for are the accoutrements, not technical acting excellence.  They like it when they get it, but they can be satisfied when they get mediocrity because they are used to getting mediocrity.

Alright, I am going off in an altogether different tangent now, so I should stop now.

Recharged

I haven't posted in a while.  It was not really deliberate.  I kind of had a bit of a wake up moment which involved instituting a new exercise regime, and reorganising the house a little bit to facilitate said routine.  I also restarted Suzuki workshops and was workshopping 'Entropia'.  With all that going on, I should have had a lot to say, but was kind of so into the actual doing that I wasn't ready to process any of it.  My life came to a bit of a screeching halt last week, however, as my mum came to town and stayed with me for a few days to celebrate her and my birthdays (they are a week apart).  Everything stops when she visits because I am too busy trying to keep her entertained to actually achieve anything.  She left three days ago, but with her departure came my 46th birthday and the flu.  As it turns out though, these couple of days of enforced down time has given me time to process everything that has been going on and it is all good.

I had a meeting with my residency mentor today to check on how I am travelling and where I move on to next.  I always enjoy my meetings with Ben.  He asks stimulating questions and refers me to stimulating sources.  These conversations with him are probably the most exciting interactions I have at the moment.  Don't read anything into that!

We chatted about what was happening with 'Entropia'.  For those of you who don't know, 'Entropia' is a short play I have been trying to develop within the constructs of Vorticism.  It started as an exploration of Humpty Dumpty, but has turned into a political polemic about Tony Abbott's lies and the budget proposal.  The process has been really rigorous and I have added a dramaturg to my team.  Zeynep has challenged my work and content in wonderful ways, demanding that I adhere to the constraints of the style.  My hardest challenge has been to avoid symbolism.  It is so woven into my concept of theatre making that it is really easy to overlook where I have put it, or not realise that is what I have done.  What has emerged is quite fascinating, and certainly different to most of what I see on stage at the moment - in Melbourne, anyway.  I should point out that it is not in the style of Wyndham Lewis's "plays".  I don't consider them drama - more word art - and he was not a dramatist himself, he was just experimenting in a different direction to Ezra Pound.  I have written four drafts so far, and have one more workshop to go.  I will then finalise the play and put it to bed.  It is too short to perform on it's own - it probably only runs to around 25 minutes - so it will need to be performed as part of a mixed season somehow, somewhere.  I guess I will have to write a companion piece - which is exactly my next step in the residency over the next two months:)