La dernière série de causerie a eu lieu en après-midi. Articule a offert la chance au public d’entendre les propos des artistes de sa programmation du festival. Le duo composé de Paul Couillard et Ed Johnson sont les présentateurs qui se sont le plus démarqués de cette matinée de artist-talk. Ces derniers – très généreux dans leur exposé – ont très éloquemment parlé de leur pratique en couple. Leurs discours étaient remplis de précieux conseils pour les performeurs en herbe.  Leurs allocutions étaient plus intéressantes que leur performance qu’ils ont livré le jeudi précédent au Bain Saint-Michel.

La dernière soirée du programme QuéCan Dans’pool clôturait la 2^e édition de VIVA. Celle-ci débutait de manière expéditive avec le très court numéro de Theo Pelmus. Ce dernier reprit, à sa façon, le légendaire plan-séquence de l’œil coupé dans le film Le chien andalou [1929, Dali, Bunuel]. Suivit l’intervention de Patrice Duchesne. Son action, où étaient employés beaucoup d’accessoires de construction, m’a beaucoup séduit. En combinant des images fortes avec des éléments plus poétiques, Duchesne nous a livré l’un des meilleurs spectacles du festival. Enfin, la performance sonore de Mieminemine terminait la séance. Le collectif est composé d’Alexandre St-Onge, Magali Babin, Éric Létourneau et sa chienne. Cette dernière a ajouté beaucoup de sourires dans l’assistance.

for instance, christian stood in front of us the whole time and did not have any visual presentation. he reminded me of gwendoline robin, the other artist who also worked in a very direct way with the element of risk. as gwendoline worked with the colours white and black, christian worked with the colours burgundy and white. both artists spoke of the pleasure of knowing and mastering a skill, or rather, their material. both artists vacated any kind of social, political, or personal meaning from their work, and rather spoke of their work through a visual language. the poetics of the image, of the confrontation between this violent gesture and the beauty of the image created.

christian presented his work in a thoughtful and searching manner. we could feel him trying to find the words to express something he could not put into words. this « why? » of the specifics of violence meeting with poetry. what was very clear though, was that he is in his work. he is deeply engaged with what it is he is creating. his work is highly crafted and controlled and he is very much in the performance.

there is a point of connect, as well, between the approach of monika and ruedi to christian. all three artists seem to come to their work from a very grounded, almost physical « it is this » approach. although monika and ruedi did not feel the need to find « justifications » for their work in the same way as christian, the manner of describing the work was very much, this happened, we did this.

monika started the presentation with describing their day-to-day life. the fact that they live in a small apartment, they have no studio, the kitchen table is where they work on things… and the most common question asked to them, « what is performance, » to which they reply, « come see. » the next question, can you survive on this? to which they reply, we have a very nice life (that is a paraphrase, i can’t remember the exact words.) they showed us photographs and spoke of some of their most recent performances. they spoke of liking performance festivals, of liking being asked to perform at a festival by another performer (the museum experience has not been so great for them.)

there was a strong feeling of self acceptance to be found in the presentation, which i found to be very comforting. the matter-of-fact and humble manner in which monika and ruedi spoke of their work and their life evoked an atmosphere that acted as a kind of « granting of permission » to those of us who are perhaps somewhat younger and perhaps struggling with the whys and the justifications we feel necessary to give to the world and to ourselves, in order to continue with our own practices.

and then as a gift at the end monika gave us a « performance » because, as she said, « i like to do it. »

paul couillard and ed johnson also obviously « like to do it, » however for them the work, the material used, the actions performed, are « holders » for significance that point beyond the source. the performances created are to lead the receiver of the « image » somewhere. both ed and paul speak of the performance as an image. they are creating images which are then imprinted into the receivers mind. their work is politically and socially engaged…and engaged with each other.

even in their presentation the collaborative, the working with each other, was « performed » with paul jumping up every once in a while and acting out a particular scene with his body that ed was trying to explain verbally. the sense of an equal partnership that worked in a back and forth style of negotiation, with strengths of each being used for the duo work, was strong.

the dynamics of the couple seemed to echo the dynamic that they themselves want to evoke in the reception of their images. the images they create are to be negotiated, worked through, and engaged with.

christian messier: http://www.pejucommunication.com/christianmessier.html

monika gunther and ruedi schill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfxS8H8NB7Q

ed johnson and paul couillard: http://www.artspace-arc.org/exhibits/duorama/couillard_johnson

gwendoline robin: http://www.gwendolinerobin.be

this is a tricky space to establish, this leveled playing field. it is tricky because first off, the spectator often wants to feel the fourth wall to feel « safe. » the leveled playing field is also tricky because it allows, or encourages, a mundane reception. by this i mean the aura of the performer is cast off and the performer becomes « one of us. »

paul couillard and ed johnson skillfully executed this relationship with us, the receivers of their performance. but here, in this space, for me, there was an interesting slippage that took place.

the art world is small. the performance world even smaller, and the performance world within canada even smaller. sooner or later, if you persist in this domain, you are going to establish relationships with other performers that blur the lines of reception. this can certainly enrich the reception of a work, but it can also bring into play all kinds of projections and complications. think here of family members. our relationship with family is often more fraught than our relationship with our friends. there is more at stake for one thing.

so yes, i know paul. not a lot, mind you, but enough to know that there is something at play in my relationship with paul that is, for me, akin to a sister, big brother relationship. i have certainly had more emotionally charged discussions with paul about performance than with my brother mind you, however, as is the case with my brother…paul and i often disagree. so, as soon as paul and ed established the equal playing field, without the hierarchical structure of « performer/audience, » paul became for me, « paul. »

my own particular reception of the performance of paul and ed was coloured by this already established relationship.

so, paul and ed started their performance by breaking down the distinction between performer and audience (although keeping this distinction just enough so that the performance remained in their control till the end when it became, through open invitation, that others joined in.) they disrupted the space of reception, the interior of the pool and entered into the audience.

so yeah, there i was sitting at the edge of the pool like a good little audience member with my notepad out ready to draw and take notes. and what does paul do?…he comes right behind me and starts to undress. suddenly i am in the field of vision and if people want to observe paul’s actions they are forced to look past me. so what to do? i could turn my head and watch paul as he undressed, or i could look the other way and try and watch ed undress (at the other side of the pool) or i could stare at my hands and hope the undressing would finish soon and the « performance would continue. »

i opted for hoping this part of the performance would finish soon and the performer (paul) would continue on his way. but no, the performance continued in this spot, and i remained in the line of sight, as paul (and ed) proceeded to attach themselves to each other via a red string which was tied to …whatever those things are called that hockey players use to protect their balls, or at least i think that was the point of attachment. the performance continued behind me as paul (and ed at the other end) dressed himself in pyjamas and…leather shoes.

somewhere between the completion of dressing and the couple starting to shimmy their way, one on either side, the length of the pool, still attached to each other via the red string, i extricated myself from the line of sight and went to sit in a chair, my back to the wall.

now, if you don’t get up and crane your head and follow the performers who are meandering through the space you are becoming the type of audience member that is left out of this kind of performance. (although before sitting down i did crane my neck and watch the filling of the pails with water and the dousing of self with water from the pail while in the pool.) this i did not want, i did not want to be left out of this performance. for one thing, i knew something else beyond the performance itself was going on inside of me that created a desire for a kind of defensive distance, and i did not think this was fair of me in relation to the performers paul and ed. i know they are good performers and they were giving something to us. i could hear the engaged reactions of everyone else in the pool, the laughter especially. but at the same time i could not ignore, or disregard, my own comfort level of reception.

so…i decided to sit in my chair and close my eyes and listen. i decided to engage with the performance, to receive the performance, by being attentive to the quality of attention i felt from the audience, and through the sounds the performers made. (i also made this choice o.k. for myself by telling myself that paul would like this because i know he is into exploring different modes of reception…but this was probably a kind of rationalization.)

and so, this is how i experienced the performance. through attentiveness to sound and through attentiveness to the energy of the performance. i listened to the movement in the space, the occasional expressions of effort, the two voices mingling at what sounded to be the far end of the pool. the sounds of shoes hitting the tiled floor of the pool. this is weird to say, but i actually felt, with my eyes closed, as if i was present with the energy of the performance.

but the pressure i felt to « see » the performance won out and i opened my eyes, and was actually glad i did because i just happened to catch, after this period of « darkness, » ed’s smile. and what a beautiful open smile he has. and he was smiling at paul while throwing seeds up into the air to hit against the large round window.

ed johnson and paul couillard: http://www.articule.org/web/expositions/09-10/viva_en