The topic of reconstruction triggers many questions related to the key theme of IMK (the documentation, transmission and preservation of contemporary choreographic practice). One of our concerns is who is the ‘reconstruction’ for? Reconstruction is an opportunity to explore connections between art making, research and theoretical practices. Starting points may be shared (materials and methods, analytic or non-analytic perspectives, questions and conceptual frameworks, etc.), but how is eventual ‘output’ of any particular process valued by different communities of practice? (e.g. professional arts, higher education and cultural preservation)
It emerged from the ‘meeting on reconstruction’ organised on 31 October 2009 during Lab #3 that ‘reconstruction (or restaging, recreation, revival, etc.) might be best realised in the context of relations, emerging in the gap between ‘performances that remain and documents that disappear’ (Paul Clarke). Who documents for the purpose of reconstruction and how? Thinking about Marion B instant laons
astien’s proposal that she functions as a notator as a ‘filter’, trying to capture only the basic ‘parameters’ of a work. A question inspired by Marion’s presentation: What if education in one of the existing dance notation systems such as Laban included a broader training in documentation methodologies? Should the original maker be considered the primary source of information about the intention of a work or does intention manifest more ‘truthfully’ in the audience’s response to it? Or in the intentions of the individual who has undertaken the reconstruction process as Martin Nachbar suggested.
Documentation of Lab #3 will be available soon to include links to related reconstruction projects like COVER and the upcoming co-production of de Appel with STUK Kunstencentrum (Leuven) titled “The manifold (after) lives of performance” 13 Nov — 15 Nov 2009.
