Ruukku #11 is published!

 

 

Ruukku #11 is published! Contributors for this issue are Stephen Bain, Mieko Kanno, Anu Vehviläinen, Elisabeth Belgrano, Elina Seye, Lea Kantonen, Pekka Kantonen, Hanna Järvinen, Pilvi Porkola, Tero Nauha and Annette Arlander.

“In the research project How to do things with performance, we have focused on performance in a broad sense. Although performance is mostly understood in a broad sense as a “doing”, there is a tendency to hark back to the colloquial uses of the word associating to performing arts, and the idea of “showing doing”. This is also the way performance is understood by many of the contributors to in this issue. We want to emphasize a wider understanding of performance as a process, and thus also a more-than-human activity.” Read the full editorial here

Thank you for joining with us at Publics for the launch!

Advertisements

Ruukku Journal at Publics 25 May 6 pm

Welcome to celebrate the publication of Ruukku Journal on How to do things with performance at Publics on 23 May at 6pm. Sturenkatu 37-41.

Tervetuloa juhlimaan Ruukku 11 Miten tehdä asioita esityksellä numeron julkaisemista, Publics 23.5. Klo 18. Sturenkatu 37-41. Tilaisuus on englanniksi.

More information / lisätietoja here

How to do things with performance?

Not only what should be done, but how it should be done is today a question as relevant as ever. And some argue we should actually do less, and think a bit more, for example how we do what we do. In the research project How to do things with performance, we have focused on performance in a broad sense, asking what can be or could be done with performance and how.

How to do things with performance? -research project is proud to present the 11th issue of Ruukku – Studies in Artistic Research devoted to the theme. How to do things with performance? And we are proud to collaborate with Publics in organising a seminar-party to launch it.

Contributors to the issue include Mieko Kanno, Anu Vehviläinen, Elisabeth Belgrano, Lea and Pekka Kantonen, Elina Seye, Stephen Bain as well as the editors Annette Arlander, Hanna Järvinen, Tero Nauha and Pilvi Porkola.

Come and celebrate the publication of How to do things with performance? Ruukku 11 with us at Publics on 23 May at 6 pm, address: Sturenkatu 37-41 4b 00550 Helsinki

For more information about Ruukku – studies in artistic research and this issue, see http://ruukku-journal.fi/en/issues/11/call

For more information about the research project, How to do things with performance? see https://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/281037/281038 or https://www.uniarts.fi/en/howtodothingswithperformance

For more information about Publics, see https://www.publics.fi/

The Expositions in Ruukku 11 How to do things with performance?

Stephen Bain: Strategies of Fiction.

Mieko Kanno: Algorithmic Thinking and Musical Performance.

Anu Vehviläinen:  Quest for a Breathing Performance.

Elisabeth Belgrano: A Singing Orna/Mentor’s Performance or Ir/rational Practice.

Lea and Pekka Kantonen: Indigenous Knowledge. Performance Art and the Faltering Act of Translation

Elina Seye: Practices of Performing at Senegalese Sabar Dance Events.

Hanna Järvinen: Re-imagining: A Case-study of Exercises and Strategies

Pilvi Porkola: Objects that matter – performance art and objects

Tero Nauha: The experience of ’something’ in performance

Annette Arlander: Return to the site of the Year of the Rooster

 

Residenssissä Ateenassa

20190410_134541

Vietin huhtikuun Ateenassa, Suomen Ateenan-instituutin säätiön residenssissä. Alkukuusta asunnossa majaili myös kollegani Salla Salin, jonka kanssa suunnittelimme tulevaa projektiamme ”Riisinjyvä ja vähän pölyä” (tulossa v. 2020). Kiertelimme museoita ja nähtävyyksiä ja pohdimme niiden materiaalisuutta. Miksi joku ruukun palanen on arvokkaampi kuin toinen? Mitä vitriiniin asettaminen kertoo esineen arvostuksesta? Miten esineestä tulee jonkun asian symboli?

20190417_140029

Entä miksi matkustaa kirjoittamaan residenssiin? Ensinnäkin siksi, että paikan vaihtaminen tekee ajattelulle hyvää. Kun täytyy miettiä, että minne tämä bussi nyt olikaan menossa tai mistä kaupasta saa gluteenittomia tuotteita, se kaikki tarkoittaa, että täytyy irrottautua arkirutiineista ja ajatella uudelleen. Toiseksi siksi, että vieraassa paikassa voi olla helpompi keskittyä, ei ole samanlaista sosiaalista elämää ja kaikkia niitä menoja, joista muka ei voi kieltäytyä. Työryhmätyöskentelyn kannalta residenssit ovat erityisen arvokkaita, koska vihdoinkin on aikaa olla jonkun asian äärellä vähän kauemmin, vähän hitaammin. No, sähköposti on tietysti aina ja kaikkialla, joten ihan kaikesta ei pääse eristäytymään.

20190404_161943

Kaupungeilla on myös oma tunnelmansa. Aluksi hätkähdin Ateenan rappiota, laudoitettuja ikkunoita ja kaikkialle yltävää graffitien kirjoa. En ole käynyt Ateenassa aiemmin, joten en osaa sanoa, onko kaupungin rapistuminen seurausta muutama vuosi sitten tapahtuneesta talouskriisistä, vai onko se alkanut jo aiemmin. Sitten siihen tottui, ja kiinnitti huomionsa muihin asioihin, kaupungin omanlaisuuteensa: supermarketeissa soi kokeellinen jazz, parvekkeilla kasvavat sitruunapuut ja kulmille on jätetty ruokaa ja vettä kaupungin lukemattomille kissoille.

20190417_140128

Residenssin vaarana on tietysti se, että matkustaa niin kiinnostavaan paikkaan, että haluaa nähdä paikasta kaiken ja unohtuu vaeltamaan raunioissa ja loputtomissa museoissa. Unohtuu katsomaan seireenin jalkoja, uskoo kuulevansa niiden muinaisen laulun ja päätyy pohtimaan, miksi ihmeessä tutkin tätä mitä tutkin, kun voisin tutkia seireenejä…

Loppukuusta kirjoitin tutkimustani. Koko talven kirjoitus oman pöydän ääressä on takkuillut, mutta nyt vihdoin sekin sujui.

 

 

HTDTWP @SAR

For the SAR conference in Zürich this year, we proposed expanding the Long Table format with objects and actions. Given our past experiences in this conference, we also convened to create a structure that would both introduce our project and propose ways into the format through actions.

Annette began by introducing the project, followed by Hanna proposing the rules of the interaction, specifically that we wished for a constructive, critical arrangement, with action as well as discussion, but that was respectful of each other in the spirit of the Long Table ‘dinner party’ format. Next, Pilvi brought several different kinds of objects, with different kinds of materialities, to the table with her statement:

20190322_133555

The format, as Split Britches describes it, already allows for written or drawn commentary. We had printed our questions to turn them into objects, too, and these got spread around the table:

20190322_160046

After Annette read her proposal and set up her video projection at one end of the table, Tero described his action in which he read a text placed in a shredder that would be turned on either after one minute or after Hanna had thrown three sixes on a D6. In our tests, the one minute had always passed before Hanna managed to throw a six three times, but the performance of course proved to be different. The shredded paper became an object-pile on the table, malleable, incoherent, fragmented text.

This mess later provoked one of our guest artists to ask who will clean the space, alluding to how low-income and precarious work is often performed by immigrant labour and is gendered – here, as Tero pointed out, the artist cleans the mess they make. A conversation that could have been about politics of precarity in the art world did not emerge, perhaps because as members of SAR attending an international conference we were all too privileged to notice this.

The second time a conversation emerged was after Hanna told a story around the Russian doll Pilvi then exposed as someone else’s property she had not yet returned. This conversation connected to earlier discussions on voice and giving voice in performance, but once again, the long table format somehow kept the discussion to such a level of politeness the contents remained rather shallow nods towards identity politics. Perhaps no conversation of this kind amongst a random selection of participants can arise without specificity of focus that would, in advance, limit the scope or topic to a degree of clarity necessary for any in-depth argument. In this instance, the allusions to earlier conversations certainly did not help us achieve coherence.

In the third moment of conversation, which already turned towards the metatextual level of the arrangement, Annette pointed to how citations had functioned in a previous instance of a long table she had attended. This, like the above questions about privilege and focus, turned the discussion also to how, by bringing in objects and other materialities than conversation (spoken or written), we had made the performance more of a performance. There was, in effect, relatively little said during the one hour of discussion, whereas objects moved a lot, provoking drawing, tracing, illustration, and movement. Some of the participants even turned the chairs around the long table into moveable objects, marked with post-it stickers, shifted and piled in what momentarily became almost a competitive re-arrangement of the space within the circle of chairs for the audience.

Nobody sang, but a musician working with improvisation made a sound-art piece from the black balloon and microphone. At one point, the moderator immoderately threw the kiwi birds that sang in our Plymouth SAR performance at the window in what was probably the most violent act and the sole instance of someone actively disobeying the rules read at the beginning.

20190322_160051

In the Q/A led by the moderator, perhaps the most interesting discussion was what made the performance a performance. The focus was on the issues of sharing practices across interdisciplinary and methodological gaps that the call for papers for this conference also raised. Afterwards, as we were cleaning the space, one of our invited artists apologised for not having joined in, because they found the objects alien to their practice. They suggested we should have filmed the performance, because that was what they saw it as being, and analysed what we might not have seen by participating. However, as this performance was also a rehearsal for something already planned for the summer, perhaps it pointed to what needs be fixed and the gaps that have to be minded in participatory acts, especially if we do wish to bring uncomfortable differences to the table.

Thank you all for joining to Research Day IV!

Again, we had a great and interesting Research Day with multiple forms of presentations and viewpoints to the topic, performance and feminism. Thank you for all presenters as well as to the audience! The link for video documentations will be published here as soon as we get them edited.

The keynote Irin van der Tuin was really inspiring! Read an interview of her here.