Els nivells de competència

I have drawn from the beginning elements of the creation of ‘The Biscuit Task’ in the closed laboratory. A description of the task and the rules for the final task can be found in section 10 of The Rule Book. The process of creating this task permits a discussion surrounding co- appearing within ensembles as the members come into contact with each other, tasks and objects.

When developing the movement patterns used in ‘The Biscuit Task’, the ensemble were initially presented with the following instruction: ‘Write a movement down with one rule not to be broken, the movement must have a moment of height/speed/stillness.’ We then began the process of learning, sharing and relearning. This was realised by the person who created each movement pattern, demonstrating while everyone else copied, asked questions and learnt the individual movement patterns. These were the movements and rules:3

1. Movement: Spin with arms in the air like a ballerina. Stop abruptly after 360 degrees.

Rule: Every other spin, spin as fast as possible. 2. Movement: Lunge forward on your right leg.

Rule: Keep your hands raised above your head for the duration of the lunge. 3. Movement: Roll (however you want). Crouch on all fours, extend one leg, rock

back onto it and stand.

Rule: You can only ever move on diagonals.

Rule: You can only move when your eyes are covered.

4. Movement: Raise your right arm above your head, keeping it straight. Rule: You can only move when the person on your left stops moving.

This process created a repetition of movement that was founded in the collective ‘We’, as we collectively (re)learnt the movement patterns, while simultaneously emphasising the

3 _{These can also be seen by following this link:}

individual by witnessing the differences in the movements from body to body. This is reminiscent of Deleuze’s (1968) discussion surrounding repetition and difference; he states ‘repetition changes nothing in the object repeated, but does change something in the mind which contemplates it’ (Deleuze, 2014, p.93). This indicates that the copying of movements and proposed repetition is disrupted in the singular. It is the familiarity of the movement that takes it into the plural; the movement becomes a return and as John Cage stated in his Lecture on Nothing, ‘repetition is only repetition if we feel that we own it’ (Cage, 1961, p.110). To draw on Jean-Luc Nancy (2000), if the movement exists in the between of ‘I’ and ‘We’, there can be no singular ownership. Cage’s indication of ownership refers not only to possession, but also to understanding, recognition and familiarity. It is this process of the repetition and differentiation of the microelements of the movement, achieved by combining and recombining that generates familiarities located in the singular and the possibility of the movement existing in the singular plural.

This sharing of actions and the dissimilarity in the repetition is an important part of the between of the ensemble. It was possible to notice a shift between mine, yours and ours as each member of the ensemble acquired shared ownership and responsibility of or for the movement. At the start of the task, the ensemble asked questions and copied the ‘leader’; however, as the process developed, there was a shift as all the ensemble members began to demonstrate ‘insider’ knowledge of the movement. Through the learning, sharing and relearning, the ensemble co-appeared through the set objective. Nancy (2000) states that a major factor of being-with is evidenced in co-appearing; he defines this as the process of shifting the focus away from the individual and towards each other. As a result, the focus is not on the individual response, but rather collective ownership. Nancy

comments that co-appearing is not ‘appearing’ in a physical sense; rather, it is re-entering the social space with others, to reinvent the outcome, ‘appear[ing] together with one another [is] co-appearing’ (Nancy, 2000, p.63).

The ownership of the movement has shifted into the between space of the ensemble, thereby suggesting the between space was in motion. The ensemble members were operating in dialogue with the ‘We’, but functioning from a new sense of individual ownership over the movement. The short extract below demonstrates and evidences how the ensemble members were beginning to move towards a sense of shared ownership over the movements and operate in the between:

CW: Right, so down over, step in, and step out [demonstrates].

JW: So it’s the leg that leads that you then move, yeah? Try again [CF demonstrates].

AA: Do you roll your arms a certain way? CT: No.

[AA: demonstrates].

CW: There, you start like this [demonstrates] and after you’ve done that you’re squatting like that [demonstrates]. I guess it make sense to step out and squat. CT: Yeah, do whatever’s easier.

CW: Charlie’s going back to the original, the original [demonstrates]. JW: So, Charlie, she keeps her foot there [points].

CW: Right, so down over, step in, and step out [demonstrates].

This element of the task was followed by a secondary task, which was to place the individual movements into random combinations and build a movement score.

The use of the phrase ‘score’ is reminiscent of the Fluxus movement, an international and interdisciplinary group formed of artists, composers, designers and poets established in the 1960s. The Fluxus movement was known for experimental contributions which focused on unpredictable, ordinary and ephemeral moments in everyday life. As part of this movement, ‘events’ were produced during which performance was based on the principles

of music. This use of text as a ‘score’ derives from John Cage’s work, notably 4’33 (1952) which directs the performer to remain silent during three ‘moments’ of chance- determined durations. As such, constructing an ‘Event Score’ formed from a series of ‘notes’ or movements that would allow anyone to replicate the performance. This is pertinent to my practice in that any member of the ensemble can pick up the written instruction and carry it out, this use of ‘scores’ allows the construction process of the movements to take place in isolation, which in turn removes a sense individual ownership over the construction or organisation of these ‘scores’.

Therefore, within the context of this task each member constructed a movement score; a distinguisehed movement pattern developed by adding speed variants. This allowed us to create a complexity to the repetition of the movement scores. At this point in the task, each ensemble member had five movements with their own speed. I then asked the ensemble to take/borrow/steal a movement and speed from another member and add this to their score. They adopted the speed and linked it to their score to create greater crossovers between the speeds to advance the sense of repetition or non-repetition, gradually revealing a movement vocabulary which seem both emptied of and charged with meaning due to the similarities and differences embodied within the repetition of movement.

This stretched the conceptions of what could be ours or mine, as the ownership of the movements were shifting continually between the ensemble. There was an unspoken certainty among the ensemble that what was understood as mine could not be relied on; it was no longer fixed in the singular. All the movements became ours; there was no isolation of the ‘I’ as we were continually in the between space of the ‘We’.

This can be likened to Nancy’s (2000) clarification of his use of hyphenations in his phrase ‘being-singular-plural’. He states the hyphen leaves each element to its isolation and its being-with-the-other (Nancy, 2000). Much like Martin Heidegger (1962), who used hyphens to demonstrate an activity or movement, Nancy is emphasising the importance of a semantic movement between division and unison:

[…] this co-essence puts essence itself in the hyphenation ‘Being-singular-plural’ which is a mark of union and also a mark of division […] leaving each term to its isolation and it’s being-with-the-others. (Nancy, 2000, p.37)

It is in Being and Time (1962) that Heidegger introduces the ontological language of being. Heidegger places being outside the traditional boundaries of ‘definition’; therefore, being becomes self-evident, manifesting, moving and shifting in its position towards other entities. Heidegger states that the ontology of Being assumes a ‘pre-ontological state’ (Heidegger, 1962, p.32). However, Heidegger is clear that this is not to be understood as ‘Being-ontological’, but rather existing in such a way that the Being understands its own Being. Thus, the being itself wants to be recognised as one with one another. This correlates with Nancy’s sense of Being-with or Being-between. Heidegger offers clarity on the phrases ‘Being-in’ and ‘Being-in-the-world’, by placing emphasis on the in, therefore, in is not a property, but rather an activity. Heidegger states that the in holds within it connotations of the relationship between Being and entities, suggesting that there is a greater purpose to the in. Consequently, the Being-in-the-world becomes visible, and the recognition of the ‘Others’ is, in fact, working to reposition the Being. The isolation of the ‘I’ needs to be overcome in order for the Being-in to become Being-with Others. The Being’s recognition of the Other is, in fact, working to reposition the Being, overcoming the

isolation of the ‘I’. Detaching the Other from which the ‘I’ stands out, compels the Being, according to Heidegger, to see itself as the Being-with Others. Nancy’s (2000) reading of Heidegger generates a co-essentiality of the two terms being and Other. Thus, Nancy’s conception opens up the question of Otherness with being and, as such, he suggests that there is the possibility of a movement between individuals.

The concept of Being-singular-plural is essential to my understanding of ensemble; the hyphenation suggests a sense of belonging that is in continual movement between the individual and ensemble. The sharing and movement of the ‘I’ and ‘We’ in each moment of the laboratory creates a co-presence: where the individual can present themselves to each other, as different and distinct individuals. When creating ‘The Biscuit Task’, the ensemble did not function to work side-by-side or alongside-each other; rather, the members were working independently for each other as they developed the movement scores. This does not mean that, at each moment, there was a sense of unity or a perpetual disunity, but rather they were able to shift and negotiate between agreement and disagreement. The singular member of the ensemble can function and exist through the engagement and entanglement with the ensemble.

Within my laboratory, the shift of focus away from self and towards the others of the ensemble is accessed through multiple possibilities reencountered each time a task is encountered. When this is combined with a greater focus on doing and responding functionally to the rules and sub-rules, it functions to establish an ensemble built from the individual engaged in the with and between.4 _{The exploration of the ensemble in the}

4 _{A sub-rule is the name given, within my practice, to the layers within the overarching task. My use of this}

laboratory environment allowed for a greater analysis of the function of the ensemble and role of the individual when considering the entanglement and disentanglement of the ‘I’ and ‘We’. This permits an investigation into the between of the singular plural and how this shift and movement occurs; the ownership of the movement, task, idea or rule then becomes blurred and the space between these conditions is exposed.