I have always been intrigued by the relationship between dance, architecture and space.
But what is space? Is it static and always there, or is it ‘produced’ by movement and by construction? Is it three-dimensional as we commonly understand it, or is Time also part of the equation, as Einstein and the physicists after him have proposed – giving us notions of ‘spacetime’? Is it measurable, or is space itself a measure? Is it a conceptual framework, or does it have its own ontology – its own nature of being and existence? Is space a perception? Can it be owned or, what do we really own when a ‘space’ is ours?
These are not my questions; they have been, for centuries, part of the philosophical and scientific discourse about space. They make it clear at once that space and spatiality – or spatial property – are complex and multi-layered; the space which dance and architecture claim to share is not only physical, for there is more to space than we see in its physicality.
A number of post-structuralist theorists have pointed out convincingly that space is socially constructed. How we are made to see an art work is critical to how we do, in fact, experience it.
Let’s consider ‘perspective’, the Renaissance notion, which we can know well from Renaissance paintings; it is based on classical Greek geometry, and is relevant to performance as it applies to the modern proscenium stage and, hence, the spectator-performer relationship. The ‘classical perspective’ is understood as a single point from which vision issues, and to which light is directed. So, it dictates where you should stand to see the work, usually central-frontal, like at the apex or point of a triangle. This perspectival vision or ‘right place’ cannot be assumed to be universal, for it was/is not true of other cultures - one can think here of the rotational perspective of Indian paintings. It is therefore important to be aware of which perspective we are talking about if we are to understand the spatial relationships between bodies.
French theorist Lefebvre points out that the single point perspective and visualisation are ideological constructs which define the perception of space and of bodies within it; and it is through these spatial relationships that subjectivities, or notions about individual actions and discourses and the individual’s understanding of his/her own experience, are constructed or socially agreed/imposed upon. Dance and architecture can organise space following a logic of perspectival visualisation but they can also disrupt this logic by creating ‘in–between’ spaces, a concept developed by Homi Bhabha to rethink identity.
A space with which we are all increasingly familiar with is the hypertext environment of the World Wide Web, more commonly known as cyberspace or virtual reality. Interestingly, we see the web as having spatiality even though it does not possess the volume duality – positive and negative – of physical space. It is a space which is architecturally manipulated, designed, to create cyber-places, increasingly capable of affording social interaction and of expressing cultural values – and yes, the programming construct is spoken of as ‘architecture’.
Dance, space, architecture: it is clearly not a relationship based only on shapes and lines. Japanese Noh theatre separates, in a ritualised manner, the world of death and the world of life, through spaces filled with white sand linked by a diagonal bridge, upon which the Noh dancers – themselves a bridge between the world of the dead and the world of the living – have to walk in order to reach the actual performance area. Says Japanese architect Kengo Kuma: “This space of separation is extremely important in Japanese architecture…In dance this void can be used to signify both space and time.”
Photographer: PWPImages
The more one thinks about it then, the idea of ‘space’ is neither neutral nor universal: space is a concept underpinned, simultaneously, by historical, geographical, social, political and cultural significations. There is not one space but many spaces, simultaneously intersecting each other, just as there is not one dance and one architecture but a plurality of differently conceived dancerly and architectural endeavours.
How does this apply to modelling and photography? In my opinion much of this would hold, with the caveat that the relationship here is perforce two dimensional. But I'd be interested in hearing other views.
This post is based on an article I published some years ago under a different name in a magazine called Pulse
(Photos modelled by Alex B.)
But what is space? Is it static and always there, or is it ‘produced’ by movement and by construction? Is it three-dimensional as we commonly understand it, or is Time also part of the equation, as Einstein and the physicists after him have proposed – giving us notions of ‘spacetime’? Is it measurable, or is space itself a measure? Is it a conceptual framework, or does it have its own ontology – its own nature of being and existence? Is space a perception? Can it be owned or, what do we really own when a ‘space’ is ours?
These are not my questions; they have been, for centuries, part of the philosophical and scientific discourse about space. They make it clear at once that space and spatiality – or spatial property – are complex and multi-layered; the space which dance and architecture claim to share is not only physical, for there is more to space than we see in its physicality.
A number of post-structuralist theorists have pointed out convincingly that space is socially constructed. How we are made to see an art work is critical to how we do, in fact, experience it.
Let’s consider ‘perspective’, the Renaissance notion, which we can know well from Renaissance paintings; it is based on classical Greek geometry, and is relevant to performance as it applies to the modern proscenium stage and, hence, the spectator-performer relationship. The ‘classical perspective’ is understood as a single point from which vision issues, and to which light is directed. So, it dictates where you should stand to see the work, usually central-frontal, like at the apex or point of a triangle. This perspectival vision or ‘right place’ cannot be assumed to be universal, for it was/is not true of other cultures - one can think here of the rotational perspective of Indian paintings. It is therefore important to be aware of which perspective we are talking about if we are to understand the spatial relationships between bodies.
French theorist Lefebvre points out that the single point perspective and visualisation are ideological constructs which define the perception of space and of bodies within it; and it is through these spatial relationships that subjectivities, or notions about individual actions and discourses and the individual’s understanding of his/her own experience, are constructed or socially agreed/imposed upon. Dance and architecture can organise space following a logic of perspectival visualisation but they can also disrupt this logic by creating ‘in–between’ spaces, a concept developed by Homi Bhabha to rethink identity.
A space with which we are all increasingly familiar with is the hypertext environment of the World Wide Web, more commonly known as cyberspace or virtual reality. Interestingly, we see the web as having spatiality even though it does not possess the volume duality – positive and negative – of physical space. It is a space which is architecturally manipulated, designed, to create cyber-places, increasingly capable of affording social interaction and of expressing cultural values – and yes, the programming construct is spoken of as ‘architecture’.
Dance, space, architecture: it is clearly not a relationship based only on shapes and lines. Japanese Noh theatre separates, in a ritualised manner, the world of death and the world of life, through spaces filled with white sand linked by a diagonal bridge, upon which the Noh dancers – themselves a bridge between the world of the dead and the world of the living – have to walk in order to reach the actual performance area. Says Japanese architect Kengo Kuma: “This space of separation is extremely important in Japanese architecture…In dance this void can be used to signify both space and time.”
Photographer: PWPImages
The more one thinks about it then, the idea of ‘space’ is neither neutral nor universal: space is a concept underpinned, simultaneously, by historical, geographical, social, political and cultural significations. There is not one space but many spaces, simultaneously intersecting each other, just as there is not one dance and one architecture but a plurality of differently conceived dancerly and architectural endeavours.
How does this apply to modelling and photography? In my opinion much of this would hold, with the caveat that the relationship here is perforce two dimensional. But I'd be interested in hearing other views.
This post is based on an article I published some years ago under a different name in a magazine called Pulse
(Photos modelled by Alex B.)
Space is very important to musicians too. I have observed many times that my playing sounds very different from one acoustical space to another, and I have become sensitized to the spiritual quality of certain spaces such as churches, theaters, clubs and homes, especially once I've actually played in them. My playing is naturally much different in a sacred space such as a church than in a club or a concert hall.
ReplyDelete(If I had my way, I would never have to play into a microphone! Microphones, amplifiers and loudspeakers always distort the sound in some ways and affect the way my playing interacts with the space. Yes, I can be creative and use the microphones to augment my natural sound and dynamic range, but I'd rather do it all with my lungs, lips and fingers. Call me old-fashioned. :) )
Such an interesting insight Jochanaan. Even as an audience member the space in which music happens has a tremendous impact on the interaction with musicians and on the music itself and how it is heard. Not to mention the power of music to take you into an inner space!
ReplyDelete